These comments are asking why she didn't do this or that, or saying she shouldn't be upset because that's just how it is, which is textbook victim blaming.

And judging by the comments in this thread alone, I hardly think it was posted to an audience that already agrees.

Sure, it's the right thing to do, that doesn't make it easy. And saying "well, you should have done this" when it's quite difficult to do is moving the responsibility for how the situation progressed to the victim.

The fact that these situations occur frequently in tech circles is indicative that things still need to be done about embedding the issues into the general consciousness of people in tech circles. If it were a one-off situation, and everyone were horrified by it, it would be easier to say "well, it was just that one guy". But the fact that it still happens frequently, and reading the comments here and elsewhere that shift the blame of the outcome to the victim... makes me think that we haven't quite got to that stage yet. Sadly.

I really wish I could find an article I read a while ago, in response to efforts in an open source community to create a "Code of Conduct" for their tech conferences. It was from a woman who had worked in blue-collar industry before and had moved into tech. She said all the things that I, as a man, cannot say, without being labeled a 'victim blamer'. It's not: it's putting the blame on the actual individual who caused the problem, rather than blaming it on the circumstances.

She made a bunch of observations. Firstly, that sexism in tech, while it happens, is nothing compared to the sexism you'd find in the average tattoo parlour or mechanical workshop. At least in tech there is the option of sitting down and writing blog posts about things and getting validation even weeks after the fact. In other sectors, you either confront the sexist in their face immediately, or you will lose face and not be taken seriously.

But she also rightly pointed out that establishing a "code of conduct" and expecting people to abide by it will not change the behavior of those who act sexist or inappropriate today. Either they do it out of ignorance, or they don't care. But they're not going to change until specific instances are pointed out.

Additionally, I've noticed on multiple occasions that putting sexism on a special pedestal and making it a mission to eradicate it just has the opposite effect. People start seeing it as a right to never be offended, based on their own narrow personal and/or cultural view. For example, there was an entire shitstorm in this community about a 'sexist' tweet, which literally did not contain any gender reference. It merely implied that there was a gallery where you could view all the conference attendees that had uploaded a picture and, tongue-in-cheek, suggested you go look for that attractive developer you saw last time. Which isn't that strange, it's hard to remember faces and names in large groups.

You'd think the tweet said "Come perv over hot geek chicks here." It would invite harrassment, sexualizes things unnecessarily, etc., and all this in a completely one-sided debate about validating the hurt feelings of a few women, completely ignoring all the men and women who didn't see any offense, who 'obviously' didn't 'get it'.

And actually, that offended me. Because it implies that a) the only people who picture-stalk are straight men b) if given the opportunity to do so, men can't help themselves.

It takes the discussion away from the individual who did something wrong, and instead paints a giant target on a nebulous generalization of a very diverse group of people.

Echoing liedra's point -- "it's worse elsewhere" is a poor excuse for inaction when we, in fact, are here (not working in tattoo parlors, for example).

Also worth noting that the fact that a woman wrote the article has little to do with how "true" it is; maybe this goes without saying, but "woman" don't have selected representatives who can reasonably speak for all of their experiences. Unless the article author is citing some actual data, she's just guessing as much as you are.

Codes of conduct really can help, if they achieve widespread acceptance. People are social animals; they care if everyone around them thinks less of them because of their actions. They find out what the people around them think sometimes because of direct confrontations, sometimes because of other things... imagine "John Doe" at a popular conference, sitting through a presentation on some retarded code of conduct, dumb modern political correctness cranked up to 11! -- and John leans over to crack a joke about it to the normal-looking guy next to him, but then he realizes the guy is nodding along with the presenter, and was now standing up to give a frickin standing ovation -- what, really? -- and, oh come on, just about everyone was standing up now? Cheering all that rubbish? He'd feel a bit lost, I think -- recognizing the disconnect -- and that probably wouldn't change his habits of thinking all that much... but it could certainly give him pause before telling that same joke about blondes and whiteout on computer screens in front of so many of these same people.

This isn't data; this is my hopeful imagining... but it's worth putting some energy into trying to fix this problem, in many ways at once (why not?) vs. putting energy into stopping others from trying to fix it.

At the very least, if you agree there's a problem, say so (instead of finding ways to dismiss it) when the topic comes up; people are listening.

Just a point about this discussion point - just because a situation is worse elsewhere doesn't make it acceptable in tech.

I agree that sometimes it goes a little overboard. But there are also genuine moments when sexist bullshit should be called out for what it is. I don't know anything about the "gallery" tweet, but you need to consider a wide contextual impact of things you say and do, especially when it comes to minority groups. Having a gallery of people involved in the conference is fine, but why bring attractiveness into it? Why not just say "interesting" or "talented" instead? It strikes me as just being a bit thoughtless of the promoters, really.

At which point does "considering the wider impact of what you do" cross into "pandering to people with an inflated sense of self-importance" though? I've seen endless discussions online where the latter isn't even acknowledged as an actual possibility. In particular, it seems North Americans are far more eager to side with an offendee than e.g. Europeans.