For context, here's the text of the audio of the guy introducing her:
"So Rebecca Lovell is the chief business officer of Geekwire, and I got to know– you can read the bio– what's written, but just for some personal color: So, Rebecca took over as executive director of the Northwest Entrepreneur network while I was on the board there and just blew us all away with her expertise, her knowledge, her connections, and her charm. And when we were putting together this program, we were looking for a real dynamite moderator who really knew the subject area, might know some of the potential panelists, and who could really add something– some substance to the program.
Thanks for this. The sexy comments were obnoxious and almost certainly wouldn't have been made about a man, but this context paints a different picture than the one the author was trying to convey.
"These would all be appropriate topics to use when introducing someone, man or woman. Here’s what the man introducing Rebecca chose to say instead"
It seems pretty clear that the omitted portion of his introduction explicitly recognizes her merit. I favor the author's overall point, but by deliberately excluding this portion of the text, he opens himself up to straw-man arguments about the misleading lack of context.
"this context paints a different picture than the one the author was trying to convey."
Really? Because what I read from the original ("out-of-context") quote was a guy trying to be funny with some sexist remarks. I didn't care what he said before or after, because it didn't matter. The part that was tasteless was tasteless and wrong.
It's not like you earn a get-away-with-sexism-free card for every complementary comment you make about a woman.
The part that was tasteless was tasteless and wrong.
Agreed.
I didn't care what he said before or after, because it didn't matter
Of course it matters, the whole truth always matters. The speaker's comments were absolutely inappropriate, but he did not make them to the exclusion of her notable accomplishments. Yes, the sexist remarks were wrong, but his opening remarks mitigate the notion that he is only capable of viewing women as sex objects.
a guy trying to be funny with some sexist remarks
Agreed once again, but I think it's important to draw a distinction between this type of sexism and genuine misogyny (e.g. women are too emotional/less capable/worse at math/deserve to make less money etc).
If you want to see how men can be sexually idolised, look at the gay community. That's men looking at men. Look at the people at gay pride parades, soft core porn or adverts aimed at the gay community (e.g. for gay bars). (Or go to amazon, look at the DVD covers for gay films)
Do you see sharply dressed men with a fine hair cut? No, you see abs, you see topless men, you see bulges in tight briefs, you see wet speedos. This is how you could sexually exploit men's appearance.
I think you make a reasonable point, but this particular comment was wrong because the comment was rooted in the speaker's sexual preferences. It is unlikely that the speaker would ever describe a man as sexy because heterosexual men generally do not view other men through the lens of sexuality. Calling someone sexy carries a pretty clear implication that they're "a valid candidate for sex", an implication which men do not have to process while interacting with 95% of their co-workers.
I should hope that calling someone a "sexy married woman" would not intend to imply that she's a valid candidate for sex. Not that it's particularly tasteful either.
I take it you're suggesting that his acknowledgment of her marriage implies an obvious understanding that she is not available as a sexual candidate, but his reference to her as sexy still reveals his approval of her appearance with regard to her value as a sexual partner for anyone (in this case, her new husband, who he points out is lucky to have her)
And the second part reiterates the sexist idea that women can't be happy unless they're married. That's hardly a straw man. If we want more women creating startups, it's exactly the kind of sexism that should be eliminated.
It's disingenious to call it "excluding". The author cited the point of contention directly and linked to the rest, explicitly for the purpose of picking up on the context. I believe that is fairly standard practice.
Because it makes it sound like you're more interested in hitting on that person than interacting with them professionally. And unless you're inclined to call everyone, regardless of gender, "sexy," it shows that you can't work with members of the opposite gender without putting a lot of emphasis on how bangable they are. Being called "sexy" tends to emphasize that you're a nicely arranged sack of meat, not a competent professional, and can make a woman (or man) think that your genitals are going to get in the way of a respectful working relationship. Not only that, but sexy people tend to be perceived as less competent. Just think of the "blonde bimbo" and "unattractive female in software engineering" stereotypes. Think about how dumb jocks get the high school cheerleader, and skinny, ugly nerds don't.
Now, I'm sure some men (or women) can successfully use that word to describe their colleagues and still work productively with them, but quite a few men can't. For an egregious example, see this profile about Sheryl Sandberg: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_...
"Dina Kaplan, the co-founder of Blip.tv, says that when she met with angel investors to raise funds she dressed nicely, and in a meeting with a potential funder he told her, “Here’s what we do, Dina. We’re going to spend half the meeting with you pitching me, and half the meeting with me hitting on you!”
“I felt nauseous,” she says. “I tried to laugh it off. I asked, ‘Of all the things you’re working on, what most excites you?’ He said, ‘Seeing you naked tonight.’"
When you've got men like that out there describing their female coworkers as sexy, you're going to have to work pretty hard to convince women not to lump you in with them. It's unfair, but that's how stereotypes work.
What about if you only describe presenters of any sort by how they look if there is something distinctive about it?
I've been to a math talk where the speaker was introduced as the "most buff mathematical physicist in the US". It was probably true - he was also an amateur bodybuilder. Most speakers don't get such an introduction, only the ones with a distinctive (and good) appearance do.
(Similarly, in a CS talk, a speaker was introduced as having "the greatest shirts in all of computing." It was probably true - I've never seen a more blinged out shirt outside of a Filipino nightclub.)
Or, even better, if you know the person personally and know that's how they present themselves, or at least you know they're OK with you calling them "sexy" in front of their spouse. Personal relationships trump general rules.
It's still not a great idea in public scenarios like introducing a speaker at a conference. Completely fine for private scenarios like introducing them to a friend.
As long as you describe all your male presenters by how they look -- then it's not sexist at all.
It depends on how you describe them. Straight men have odd ways of thinking they are describing appearances of men in the same way as women, when in fact they are sexualing the women and then complimenting how sharp a dresser the man is. They give straight male compliments to men, rather than sexualising them.
as I said elsewhere, If you want to see how men can be sexually idolised, look at the gay community. That's men looking at men. Look at the people at gay pride parades, soft core porn or adverts aimed at the gay community (e.g. for gay bars). (Or go to amazon, look at the DVD covers for gay films)
Do you see sharply dressed men with a fine hair cut? No, you see abs, you see topless men, you see bulges in tight briefs, you see wet speedos. This is how you could sexually exploit men's appearance.
If you just act like the cast of Mad Men ("Nice tits Peggy, nice shoes pete"), you have double standards.
Um, that's kinda the point. I may not think calling someone "sexy" is sexist. I may think calling someone "Frank" is extremely offensive. It doesn't matter what I think! Concepts like "sexism" are based on social norms.
It makes the whole post seem sensationalized and disingenuous to talk about all the great things this woman has done and then excerpt the fact they seemed to have also covered those in the intro.
To be clear, I am not condoning sexism, but this particular tirade against it feels like someone is trying to deceive me into taking their side by not presenting a full picture. It could have simply stated that the intro was actually okay until that point and perhaps that sort of comment inside a longer intro has no place.
Not arguing that it does or does not. However, if the author is going to make an argument and discredit whomever made the comments and skip the part where they do exactly what the author says they should have done, the author starts to lose credibility.
I agree that the author's argument was inconsistent there. They should have stuck to the point that the comments were inappropriate - which is the main issue.
It would be interesting to get Rebeccas thoughts on the introduction.. it sounds strange reading it, but I could easily expect something like that from someone who was a close personal friend of the couple.
There's a little bit of selection bias: I wager that if you asked the women in a Mad Men-style secretarial pool if they minded having their bottoms patted and their appearances complemented, a majority of them would say 'no', because women who minded (and had any other employment options) would have long since left the secretary pool for greener pastures with less bottom-patting (or have never gotten such a job to begin with).
The sort of people who can make it in the tech world are smart, motivated, powerful people. If they find the tech world uninviting, they have plenty of options elsewhere. So it's perfectly possible that you could survey a hundred women in tech and find that all but a handful don't notice or don't mind their peers' attitudes towards women, but that if you were to survey a hundred women who could be in tech, 95% of them would find the behavior unacceptable.
all but a handful don't notice or don't mind their peers' attitudes towards women
You left out an important subset, here: Those who notice, and mind, perhaps even mind a lot, but who know better than to admit it out loud, because doing so won't help them.
>called out a (perhaps well-meaning) but tone-deaf presenter //
Does she mean he has a physical impairment, which would seem more than a bit crass to point out in the context, or is this an idiomatic/euphemistic expression that isn't coming over right?
I don't know that it's common in the USA, but it seems to be well understood in these parts at least. It's used to describe anyone unable to accurately gauge the mood of the people they're addressing and who thereby offends them with their remarks.
Hi there...thanks for the clarifying! Language is incredibly loaded and we're all guilty. I absolutely intended that the presenter was not attuned to the impact of his speech. Here's more on that thread. http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2012/02/startup-dudes-cut-sex...
"So Rebecca Lovell is the chief business officer of Geekwire, and I got to know– you can read the bio– what's written, but just for some personal color: So, Rebecca took over as executive director of the Northwest Entrepreneur network while I was on the board there and just blew us all away with her expertise, her knowledge, her connections, and her charm. And when we were putting together this program, we were looking for a real dynamite moderator who really knew the subject area, might know some of the potential panelists, and who could really add something– some substance to the program.
Rebecca's one of the smartest ladies ..."