I was wondering the same thing the other day. I think she's hiding out and probably not sure about her next move. I don't know her at all but I emailed her to tell her that she has done lots of good and will be forgiven if she explains where she screwed up. Nobody deserves to be told they should be raped etc. and I think the only way for some of the public overreaction to stop is for her to admit her own overreaction. I don't think she's a bad person, but this was a bad mistake to make and stay silent after and she might be remembered as only this is if she doesn't speak up. I also worry this has made women in tech appear fragile and oversensitive. I don't like how she's trying to speak for me, a women in tech, because she doesn't handle herself like a woman, she handles herself like a child. Have a tantrum and run away. The longer she waits, the harder it will be for the public to forgive her. Come on Adria, you must be better than this. You seem so smart, please just step up to the plate. Women in tech need you now to return our reputation to what it was before your outburst.
Women in tech need you now to return our reputation to what it was before your outburst.
I disagree. She needs to attend to her physical safety, first and foremost, and her mental health, a close second. The overreaction to her tiny tweet was about a million to one and her very public flogging was so out of proportion and so misogynistic and racist that if I were her, I'd be scarred for life. It reminded me of those 3rd world stories that pop up every once in a while where some poor woman gets raped by an entire village as punishment for adultery. Let's not pile up on an already unfortunate situation by suggesting that the perpetrator of a tiny crime (if a rather temperate tweet that called a joke "not cool" can even be called a crime) has to apologize in the wake of other people's much, much larger crimes (from the firing of one of the jokers to rape threats to death threats).
On a larger note, it's never a minority group's responsibility to keep the majority prejudice-free. We really need to dispose of the silly notion that it's our responsibility as women in tech to be 100% perfect lest some men decide to withdraw their respect. We do not deserve to be held to a higher standard than men who engage in irrational, drama llama or otherwise childish behavior all the time (case in point, the dongle joke that started the whole thing).
Our reputation does not need to be "returned" because it was never "lost". Adria Richards, take care of yourself.
P.S. You said, I don't like how she's trying to speak for me and want her to apologize. Do you not see that she was not trying to speak for you any more than you tried to speak for me just now? That being born a woman does not make you the speaker for, or responsible for the reputation of, your entire gender? Otherwise you have exact same thing to apologize for.
Thanks for the input and keeping the conversation going. I respect you have your opinion but I want to address some points (just to specify, and you're of course entitled to your opinion either way):
I'm not putting her at a higher standard than a man and I don't think anyone else is. If a guy did this, I honestly think even more people would freak out.
I am speaking for women in tech and I absolutely do not have anything similar to apologize for, simply because of this fact:
She said she is speaking for women in tech and she did something stupid. I'm speaking for women in tech saying Adria don't represent women and say you're doing something for women (you're a "hero") when you're actually doing something very wrong. If you want to represent us, apologize then. So yes, that does tarnish us to some degree. She needs to take responsibility for that. If she didn't proclaim to represent us then it wouldn't be a problem to me. I really don't see how that can be argued and why you're as offended as if I ruined someone's career/life at pycon. But it is your opinion.
If she didn't proclaim to represent us then it wouldn't be a problem to me. I really don't see how that can be argued.
She said she is speaking for women in tech.
Quote please? I don't think she said or proclaimed anything of the sort. (I've just re-read her tweets and her blog post, and I couldn't find anything).
I'm speaking for women in tech.
Please stop. You do not speak for me, or any other women in tech. Your opinion is your own.
You're as offended as if I ruined someone's career/life at pycon.
I am not offended at all. Please re-read my post. Which parts did you think said or implied that you've ruined anyone's life or career?
You're saying I need to apologize. That shows me you're offended.
I don't have the quote on me, but it's online. Google more if you care to see it.
If you don't want me to speak for you, that's fine. I'm just saying most women in general would be offended to be represented by Adria and I'm saying most of us (all the dev women I know so far) are not interested in being made to look stupid through her self-proclaimed representation. I'm just trying to defend that and I'm sorry you were offended in the process. Your voice definitely counts too. I just don't understand it (I'm honestly trying).
I don't have the quote on me, but it's online. Google more if you care to see it.
You have made a false claim about what Adria Richards said. If you do not have a quote to back it up, how can I be expected to? How could I possibly find a quote that doesn't exist?
I'm just saying most women in general would be offended to be represented by Adria.
You keep repeating that she represents all women. She doesn't. And you don't know how most women feel based on your own feelings.
You're saying I need to apologize. That shows me you're offended.
I said no such thing. Again, please re-read my post.
Your voice definitely counts too. I just don't understand it (I'm honestly trying).
No, you are not "honestly" trying. You've accused Adria Richards of saying something she didn't, I asked for a quote, and your response was "google it", even though I already said "I've just re-read her tweets and her blog post, and I couldn't find anything". You are also intentionally arguing with things I did not say; implying that I am emotional ("offended") to avoid arguing on substance; and using sarcasm like, "most women are not interested in being made to look stupid" because what, some women like me are? This is not how people maintain an honest and healthy discussion.
> How could I possibly find a quote that doesn't exist?
In any other circumstance, that might be OK. In this case though, she has written just ONE blog post about this incident. Obviously it makes sense to start there. She has given many interviews too about it, and commented on other websites. You could have left that for later.
Women in technology need consistant messaging from birth through retirement they are welcome, competent and valued in the industry.
Let’s unify the message to our daughters and to the women developers we work with:
“We want you to be here and we will do our best to welcome you into the world of programming.”
What has to change is that everyone must take personal accountability and speak up when they hear something that isn’t ok. It takes three words to make a difference:
“That’s not cool.”
</blockquote>
I am given to understand that katherineparker does not believe that she's one of these women who need to be massaged from birth to retirement, and katherineparker wishes Adria, being some kind of evangelist, had stopped "representing" women in general in this manner. That's cool. I absolutely refuse to massage anyone.
> You have made a false claim about what Adria Richards said.
False claim.
> You keep repeating that she represents all women.
Odd. KP said the opposite. There is definitely more matter for me to go on about. Just not the will.
Me to KP: You keep repeating that she represents all women.
You to me: Odd. KP said the opposite.
Are you trolling? Let me quote KP:
If she [Adria] didn't proclaim to represent us then it wouldn't be a problem to me.
and
She [Adria] said she is speaking for women in tech.
On what planet are these statements the opposite? I quite literally quoted KP's claims verbatim.
And why did you post that random <blockquote>? Was it supposed to prove that Richards said she was speaking for all women? Because in what you quoted, she doesn't actually say that.
I'm afraid I must decline to join you on that. But I'm glad you quoted KP, and astounded that I should have to point out the following to you: "proclaim to represent" and "said she is speaking for" is just not the same as "represent" and "is speaking for". I could proclaim to represent the queen of Mars. That does not mean that I do represent her.
The bit I quoted, constitutes "to speak, act, or be present officially for another person or people". That's what "represent/Verb" means, according to an Oxford dictionary. A bit later, Adria challenges Mark, "When was the last time you spoke up at work or a conference on behalf of someone else?"
I could tell you the same thing ("re-read my posts") and that you're blatantly wrong. I don't really want to debate back and forth beyond where we've gone since we're just reiterating at this point (I feel like your missing a basic fact and apparently you feel the same way). I'm agreeing to disagree because I can't persuade you and you sure as hell can't persuade me and this conversation is no longer thought-provoking and its frankly a waste of time (that goes for both of us).
I agree with you on all counts… especially that she acted like a child. It sounds like her behavior is motivated by building up her own self-image. In her blog post, she portrayed herself as a hero (actually called herself a hero), and later she referred to herself as Joan of Arc. Unfortunately that kind of thinking about ones' self rarely gets better. Challenges to the self-image just cause the person to dig in deeper to defend it. Unfortunate.
I really can't figure out why are women in tech so hard on themselves...
From what I can tell Adria was a woman who misjudged the level of public support for her 'cause' and what was appropriate in 'defending it.' She crossed a line she didn't expect to be there and when she did, the support she thought would be there evaporated before her eyes and she was very publicly thrown to the lions.
Yes, she may not have been the smartest cookie for not having that figured out but many men have crossed a similar invisible line known as sexual harassment, yet when was the last time you saw a man's career publicly shot to pieces because they 'misread the signals?'
I'm not trying to demonize her. People harassing her online are inappropriate and should apologize as well (but probably won't because they're anonymous cowards). The men were technically violating the conference's code of conduct and have already apologized. It's her turn now, that's all I'm saying.
edit: Sorry, I did not understand your post (I think you may have edited it later?). I'm not hard on myself. Not sure where you gathered that from. I just don't like someone representing a group I'm a part of if they are going to fuck up its reputation by acting reckless.
I was responding to ahoyhere with my comment and I edited it after I realised it she is also a woman in tech.
I guess I really wish that the 'women in tech' had responded more along the lines of "Yes she's acting like a childish <expletive of choice> and we don't like it either, but don't you dare treat her like this.'
P.S. This is from a queer in tech who was once similarly cast to the lions for complaining (in private ;) about management calling LGBT co-workers faggots, so that might have polarised me a bit on issues like these.
I agree with what you're saying and also sorry for butting in :P (I was a bit confused). Adria definitely doesn't deserve what is happening to her. I think the reason a lot of people lack sympathy is because her situation is like her being bullied for being a bully. Bullying is wrong no matter what (or who it's done to) and people need to remember that.
> I really can't figure out why are women in tech so hard on themselves...
I'm not hard on myself at all.
Frankly, I think I'm quite gentle on a person who crowed about her heroism, her impact on the ages, her contribution to "the great fight", of attacking a couple of blameless strangers, posting their photos online without their permission, who used her ability to stop a conversation entirely to get others kicked out of a conference and to silence them… and who did it all because the other people were of a different gender. Those are the actions of a bully.
I don't have to sympathize with somebody's actions because they share my chromosomes.
I am not a bully. I don't defend bullies. I don't care what they've got in their pants. Bullies are bullies and they come in every shape and form.
I don't have to use the word "we" to include myself as if I belong with people I don't know, have never met, have nothing in common with, disagree violently with, etc.
I don't have to make a statement "as a woman in tech" that death threats are wrong. (Do you feel the need to make a statement against child abuse every time somebody talks about a "gay" Catholic priest molesting a choir boy? No? Probably because it goes without saying, right, and has absolutely nothing to do with you to begin with?)
BTW - actually calling people "faggots" is not even in the same city, much less ballpark, as a couple of strangers behind you giggling over a "dongle" joke to themselves, that was not directed at you, did not involve you, and did not refer to anyone in the audience or on the stage. "Dongle" is not a slur, it's not a title, it's not a word of oppression, and guess what, it's a silly joke on the level of a 3rd grader going "YOU SAID 'IT'!!" -- totally harmless.
Bullies who glory in their bullying with the expectation that their powerful in-group will congratulate them, on the other hand? That's exactly like people who call other people faggots.
> I don't have to sympathize with somebody's actions because they share my chromosomes.
I didn't at all mean to imply that you should have. I only hesitantly used 'women in tech' here because I was talking about my own wish for one of my own abstractions.
> Bullies who glory in their bullying with the expectation that their powerful in-group will congratulate them, on the other hand? That's exactly like people who call other people faggots.
You might be right. I guess I can't judge the situation nor the cultural differences accurately enough to determine which side is the evil-doer here.
Let's just that if she really did honestly believe she was (selflessly) fighting the good cause, I can relate quite well to what she must be going through right now.
> Let's just that if she really did honestly believe she was (selflessly) fighting the good cause, I can relate quite well to what she must be going through right now.
I think you're underrating yourself and overrating her. Many people claim to be "fighting the good fight" and use that to do awful things. A lot of them are "fighting against the good fight" against gay civil rights. Do you sympathize with them too? (I'd understand if you said yes, but most people don't extend their sympathies that far.) Just think about it. Feelings aren't truth. (And statements aren't necessarily even truth about feelings.)
> yet when was the last time you saw a man's career publicly shot to pieces because they 'misread the signals?'
How about the guy who got fired for making a "big dongle" joke to his buddy within Aria Richards' ear shot? She could have turned around and simply asked them to stop, like an adult, if a 3rd grade "sex" word really bothered her so much.
Instead, she smiled at them while she took their photos, posted them on Twitter, exorciated them, publicly demanded the conference kick them out, and at least one of them was fired afterwards.
I can't imagine firing somebody for laughing at the word "dongle," so one can only assume it was because of the attention.
Don't underestimate her intelligence. She is a smart cookie. She's also a sanctimonious asshole. Women can be those too, you know.
The outrage over her actions isn't because she "misjudged the level of support" but because those actions were wrong, no matter who you are. It was very public because everything she chose to do was very public. If she had asked the people behind her not to say the word 'dongle,' it would have ended there. If she had gone to a conference organizer in person instead of tweeting about it publicly in a tweet designed to be seen by everyone, and saying "You need to remove these people," it would have ended there. If she hadn't written a blog post calling herself a hero, and painting a maudlin scene with an adorable little girl in a photograph on stage blah blah blah, it still probably would have ended there.
I'd argue with the PlayHaven guy's career being publicly shot to pieces, since hardly anyone even knows who he is and I doubt he's going to have a ton of trouble resuming his career in tech.
> Don't underestimate her intelligence. She is a smart cookie. She's also a sanctimonious asshole.
> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I can't comment on that since I don't personally know her, buy if you do I can imagine reasons for your resentment.
Still, most people don't know her personally and judging the story at face value she could just as well have been dense yet sincere rather than devious and sanctimonious.
Given the caustic nature of the fallout, she's doing the only smart thing and minimizing any streisand effect by keeping a low profile. Note that I'm not suggesting that she was in the right or wrong, but that she's identified that there's no percentage in trying to "win" this, and that the spillover will have a detrimental effect on causes that she cares about (women in tech, for example).
