
Why I asked to be removed from the Techweek 100 - seanjohnson
http://www.sean-johnson.com/asked-removed-techweek-100/
======
Peroni
>As a boss, I’ve deliberately tried to hire women to counteract the male-
dominated work tech environments I’ve seen and been a part of.

I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but here in the UK, that element
of 'affirmative action' is illegal.

~~~
pyre
Depends on what he means. He could just mean that he made extra efforts to
make sure that his candidate pool for the job wasn't just men.

He could also mean that in a tie for qualifications (between a man and a
woman), he would hire the woman; which, while possibly illegal to the letter
of the law (in the UK, possibly elsewhere), doesn't seem like a horrible
thing. He explicitly states that it's to counter-act male-skewed tech work
environments, so presumably if the work place were 50/50 men-to-women, he
would relax this preference to women (as a tie-breaker).

~~~
Peroni
I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out the fact
that his approach, even by your suggested guidelines, is still very much
illegal in the UK.

Legality to one side, I would be interested in hearing more about this. Surely
any hiring decision that's even remotely swayed by gender opposes the entire
concept of gender equality?

~~~
ronaldx
> very much illegal in the UK.

I question this. Neither I nor Wikipedia should be used for legal advice, but
there are exceptions to discrimination law, and the parent's comment seems to
precisely meet one of them:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_employment_discrimination_l...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_employment_discrimination_law#Positive_action)

~~~
Peroni
Assuming _absolutely_ identical skills, experience, education, etc, then you
are legally entitled to apply positive action in favouring a woman. Attempting
to defend that position in a UK employment tribunal however, would be near
impossible.

------
jakejake
I don't find the photo particularly scandalous, but taken in the context of
the tech industry issues with sexism, it definitely shows a lack of awareness
on the part of the organizers.

I would hate to see us become so politically correct that we can't show a
picture of people having fun to advertise a party. But, it's not that hard to
find stock images of both men and women who are attractive, having fun
together and not dressed up like playboy models kissing one another.

------
sp332
Asking as one of these apparently tone-deaf guys, can someone be specific
about what's bad here? Was Techweek for throwing the party, or the women
dressing that way, or deciding to pose that way for photos, or Techweek
putting the photos on Facebook, or choosing the photos for the invite?

~~~
ronaldx
I don't see what good will come of this, but I will try genuinely to help you
nonetheless.

Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models
on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts undone
to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately equivalent?

If not, you might like to consider why that choice of image would be
uncomfortable for you and that this particular choice of image might be
uncomfortable for others.

If you bite the bullet (well done!), there are further problems. This is an
event to launch a _high school seniors_ employment initiative. High school and
sexualised imagery don't belong together.

~~~
kristofferR
> Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models
> on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts
> undone to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately
> equivalent?

That actually touched on a very different issue, especially the "sharing a
kiss"-part. While nobody seeing the pictures of the two girls is thinking of
them as lesbians, a lot of people would consider two guys doing the exact same
poses "gay". Just goes to show that gender inequality cuts both ways :(

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that all though. I REALLY disagree
that we should hide images like that because a lot of people (even people who
support gay marriage) are uncomfortable with things that "are gay".

> High school and sexualised imagery don't belong together.

WHAAT? They're 17/18 for gods sake! There's hardly a time where it is more
appropriate.

~~~
ronaldx
1\. The fact that you/others expect women to behave in a sexually titillating
way for men is not 'cuts both ways' discrimination, except that it degrades
everyone.

2\. High school students deserve to be respected.

Your comment disgusts me.

~~~
kristofferR
1\. Huh?! Where have I said anything of that sort, or something even close to
it? Are you sure you even read my comment?

2\. Yeah, they do. Forcefully repressing their sexuality is not respectful. At
all.

I think it's pretty stunning that you find my comment, in which I highlighted
a gender inequality issue and being honest with youth about their sexuality,
disgusting.

------
etchalon
So, to promote a party, Techweek used images from the same party last year, of
actual people who attended the party last year.

That they chose to use attractive, well-dressed women, who looked like they
were having fun, is somehow offensive.

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this.

~~~
danielharan
Were they actual attendees, or is that an assumption?

~~~
etchalon
TechWeek claims they were: [http://techweek.com/a-note-to-our-
community/](http://techweek.com/a-note-to-our-community/)

I'm taking them at their word.

"The photo in question was taken from a series of photos of event attendees
that were posted on our Facebook page in March. These photos were taken at a
photo booth featuring top hats, bow-ties, and other fun black-tie related
props. It was used with the intent to promote and encourage attendance at the
inaugural event here in Chicago."

Re-reading it, it might not have been this exact party/event, but it's clear
that it's not just some stock photography of pretty women.

------
Permit
Reminds me of the opposite of the sexism LinkedIn was accused of[1]. It'd have
been interesting if the two individuals in the posted pictures had been
developers as well. I wonder if that would have changed the dynamic of the
conversation at all.

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-accused-of-sexism-
fo...](http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-accused-of-sexism-for-banning-
an-ad-2013-8)

~~~
startupstella
I assure you if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed
like that. Unless the tech event had a sexual theme.

~~~
dubfan
Why? Because developers are all asexual and inhibited?

~~~
startupstella
Because it's a tech event. When was the last time you saw someone wear a
playboy bunny outfit to a tech event?

~~~
sp332
The point of this party (if you read the small print in the image) is to have
a fun charity event strictly _before_ the conference starts. It is explicitly
outside the timeline of the "tech event."

 _if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like
that._

You seem to be ignoring the fact that they did exactly that.

------
outside1234
Is it impossible for women to be beautiful and be competent and have fun at a
rave party?

Can we not have pictures of people at a rave now? Or do they need to be
boring? Or have ugly people?

~~~
pessimizer
Those women weren't invited to the party. They were purchased from an agency
and used to market a media event to men.

edit: I'm now getting the impression that these photographs were from a
previous event rather than stock. Does anyone know?

~~~
sp332
Yes, they are from Techweek Miami earlier this year.

------
kirinkalia
The Techweek drama aside, what do you think of Sean's post? I admire and
applaud his bravery in admitting he hasn't done enough in the past and will do
better in the future.

~~~
a-t-shirt
77.8%.

In the United States, 77.8% of homicide victims are male.

But no, Sean is having a public anxiety attack because a company chose a
photograph of two _actual attendees in a photo booth_ who chose chose to dress
slightly more provocatively than his sensibilities allow.

Sean isn't being brave. He's sucking up to women in an extremely politically
expedient way.

------
zaqokm
Due to recent complaints the black tie ball is now and Amish style. This is to
prevent the objectification of women by making them less appealing.

Call me ignorant (although I would rather refer to myself as not really
focused or caring on the matter), that just because there are 2 good looking
woman promoting an event which hopefully should also be fun does not make it
objectifying women.

Maybe people are just paying to much attention to the small things.

------
ryguytilidie
Woah, tons of straw men in here. If you read this and believe that the fact
that they chose attractive women is the problem, than you should probably
either reread it or stop having opinions about things.

~~~
outside1234
Ok, I'm confused, if that isn't the problem, then what is?

------
_deh
Leaving the gratuitous sexism to one side briefly - a Black Tie Rave...
'champagne and caviar paired with glowsticks'... I ask you. And from the city
that gave the world house music.

------
dueprocess
These typical ads portrait women as play-things to be gawked at rather than
someone's daughter, wife and another human being. And they are plain dumb.

But it's so prevalent nowadays that it hardly registers in a conscious way,
and I think that's the problem.

As an LDS Christian I go to church and won't watch R rated movies, but even I
feel like I've become numb to this kind of objectification of women. And I
think it's a serious, _serious_ problem in this society.

~~~
Theodores
The Mormon church objectifies women albeit with some reverse psychology going
on - the need for women to cover up and not dress 'sexy' is just another way
to objectify women. Mormon males not watching 'R' movies is the same - reverse
psychology. Some women - most women - really do want to be more than some
frumpy Mormon daughter/wife/grandma. Furthermore, with the Mormon church there
is no room in the priesthood for women - how can you skip that and move on to
the objectification debate?

Normally I keep my opinions on the LDS church to myself lest I offend some
Mormon, yet, on places like HN I think it is better to encourage the
indoctrinated to escape belief in mythical sky gods and false prophets. You
need to quit that church and start to see, love, understand and enjoy being
with women on a bigger canvas than allowed by your church.

~~~
dueprocess
In Genesis 2:18 God says He will make Adam an _ezer kenegdo_ (Hebrew). In the
context of subduing the earth (Gen 1:28) ezer kenegdo means "strategic ally".
An equal to man in every way, ordained with the power to give life. Without
the woman, human life could not exist.

The woman was God's final creation. One could convincingly argue He saved the
best for last.

------
a-t-shirt
The #YesAllWomen campaign opened my eyes, too.

When three men and three women are murdered, we focus _completely_ on the
women. When men are _overwhelmingly_ disproportionately the victim of
homicides, violent crime (including violent crime from strangers), we instead
choose to have a society-wide struggle session[1] on the plight of western
women.

Western culture is hypersensitive to women's issues. In particular, hyper-
affluent White men seem to derive some carnal pleasure from throwing other men
under the bus.

As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of
men, and as long as Twitter/HN activists mock anyone who points out the
compassion disparity ("WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?"), we're never going to achieve
anything resembling equality.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session)

~~~
seldo
> As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of
> men ... we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality.

I'm unclear on your thesis here: is your position that the reason women are
disadvantaged in society in general and tech in particular because we "care
more about the plight of women"? Because that seems illogical.

But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at
a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion.

Your account is 6 days old, of course, so I may be just feeding a troll here.

~~~
a-t-shirt
> But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are
> at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion.

For men and women born since the mid-1980s, absolutely. And crime, education,
and income statistics support my assertion.

~~~
seldo
It is possible for it to be simultaneously true that men are more frequently
victims of violent crime, perform worse in standardized tests, and earn less
than women[1] and _also_ that women are more frequently the victims of sexual
assault[2] and other forms of harassment, prevented from taking the careers of
their choice[3], and subject to a greater degree of criticism in the media for
the same actions[4].

The existence of things that are bad for men does mean that men have things
harder than women. The fact that there are things we should fix for men does
not mean we can ignore the things that are broken for women. This is not a
zero-sum game, and it is not productive to determine who "has it worse". There
are things that are bad for women that happen to women, and we should stop
those things happening without questioning whether they are "deserving" of
doing so.

[1] Though I have never seen any stats that back up this last assertion, ever.

[2] [https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-
assault-...](https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-
victims)

[3]
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.htm)

[4] [http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/03/how-we-
criticize...](http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/03/how-we-criticize-
men-vs-how-we-criticize-women/)

