6 ms·

That Amanda Blum Article on Adria Richards is Not What It Seems

27 points by henrik_w 14y ago

chasing 14y ago
Two guys make fairly minor transgression at conference. In response, a woman makes fairly minor transgression as far as reporting it. Their companies appear to overreact, but who really knows since we don't know anything else about how these people did their jobs. Bloggers expend endless hours slicing and dicing the minute meanings of otherwise inconsequential things, hoping to peg blame where there simply might be none. Have I summarized this who episode about right?
- pekk 14y ago
  Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor, and posting said photograph to Twitter to enlist an army against someone is not minor at all. It's full scale bullying. The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd. Drowning people in death threats and DoS attacks over the internet is not minor either.
  - niggler 14y ago
    "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor" It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent? "posting said photograph to Twitter" When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show) "enlist an army against someone" It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired. " It's full scale bullying." You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse. "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.
    - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
      The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
      - niggler 14y ago
        I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol. She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 "I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
      - dalke 14y ago
        I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint? It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed. The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public? However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate? Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable. Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Please explain the statement "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor." PyCon has no prohibitions on taking photographs, and neither does the venue. Taking pictures in public without consent is legal, with only a small set of exceptions. PyCon by default inherits those rules, so I don't see how it's illegal. Perhaps have some moral code in mind? Here is a picture of people at PyCon 2013. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ . Do you think the photographer got permission from each of the people to take the picture? Here is a picture of Michael Foord and Guido van Rossum, where Foord's name tag is clearly visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ . Here's one of Shane Grigsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ , with name tag clearly visible. Do you think the respective photographers asked for permission to take the photo first? I doubt it, but it might be possible for those specific cases. I have taken many photographs at PyCon over the years, without asking for permission. Many photographs were taken of me, including this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ while I was speaking. I never granted Uhop permission to take the photograph. Under what basis do I have for complaining that it was illegal, immoral, or unjust for that photograph to be taken and published to flickr? I agree with "is really not minor" only if by that you mean "perfectly acceptable." However, I don't think that's what you mean. You imply that it's a serious ethical transgression. I don't understand how, so I request enlightenment.
  - chasing 14y ago
    "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's not at all, really. Especially Adria, who called herself an "evangelist" at SendGrid. If your job is to evangelize something in a positive way and instead you piss off a bunch of people (fairly or unfairly), you're not really doing your job. Both of these people, Mr. Dongle and Adria, will land on their feet -- trust me. This is simply the sort of story that has just enough detail to push people's buttons and just enough lack of detail so we can fill in the blanks with our own fantasies and prejudices about who the people involved are and what actually happened.
    - dalke 14y ago
      Title VII protections for the workplace give protection against retaliation to people who make a complaint about sexual harassment. Even if it causes negative impact on the company. Even if the complaint was made in public. Even if it was in a workplace which was not under control of the company. She cannot legally be fired because of what happened. Since she was fired, this means that she could take her case to court, and the courts will almost certainly find in her favor. While I can and have talked about this elsewhere, it's best that you read what a lawyer says about this topic: http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and-retaliatory-termination-of-adria-richards.shtml http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and...
      - subsection1h 14y ago
        Can Adria be fired for stating publicly that SendGrid supported her complaints when in fact the company didn't support her complaints? https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 If I have an employee who accuses an innocent co-worker of sexual harassment publicly and goes on to state that I support her accusation, when in fact I don't, can I not fire the employee?
        dalke 14y ago
        "Can Adria be fired for stating publicly ..." It depends on several factors. A company cannot use a legitimate reason for firing someone as a pretext for an illegal reason to fire someone. The courts will ask questions like: Does the company have a policy that if an employee makes an incorrect statement like this then that person can be fired? Are there examples of other employees who made an incorrect statement but did not get fired? Here's the actual EEOC statement: > The anti-retaliation provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against any individual because s/he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or litigation under Title VII ... > The anti-discrimination statutes do not limit or condition in any way the protection against retaliation for participating in the charge process. While the opposition clause applies only to those who protest practices that they reasonably and in good faith believe are unlawful, the participation clause applies to all individuals who participate in the statutory complaint process. Thus, courts have consistently held that a respondent is liable for retaliating against an individual for filing an EEOC charge regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the charge\26. To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes. > Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity. "If I have an employee who ..." The law gives broad anti-retaliatory protections to someone who made a complaint. As I quoted above, the courts protect a claim made in good faith. "To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes." "Good faith" is given a very broad interpretation. It's not expected that an employee will know the Title VII laws, nor know if a certain practice is actually prohibited under the law. However, if it was not made in good faith (the wording is something like "no reasonable person would agree"), then that complaint does not have Title VII protections. Also, the employee may not make unreasonable forms of complaint. The EEOC writes: "[C]ourts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers\17; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints\18; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement.\19 Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. ... If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge." That tweet can be parsed in many ways. Does "support me" mean that the company agrees that hearing unwanted dirty jokes while at the workplace is a valid reason to complain? Does "support me" mean that the company supports her legitimate use of Title VII protections? Does "support me" mean that her supervisor told her she was supported by the company, but upper-level management later decided that she wasn't? Given that a company is supposed to support an employee's Title VII civil rights, I think that there is a reasonable person (the law says 'a reasonable person' not 'every reasonable person') who would say that tweet is nowhere near the bounds of what is impermissible in a Title VII action.
- rmrfrmrf 14y ago
  Any summary that minimizes the tech community's oppression of women is insufficient.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    Any comment that doesn't mention that she publicly shamed the wrong guy is an obvious troll attempt.
  - dasil003 14y ago
    Come on now, he's being extremely charitable to Adria here. Some guys making a dongle joke is not oppression of women. It is at best a distant tangential symptom of the problem.
    - dalke 14y ago
      You are correct. The EEOC agrees with you. "Making a dongle joke is not oppression of women." In fact, a workplace where everyone cracks Benny Hill-style jokes full of sexual innuendo does not (according to the law) count as form of sexual harassment. Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC: "In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
  - MetaCosm 14y ago
    Can we stop the drumbeat of victimization? You know what is really awful, the oppression of men in nursing! Less than 7% (versus 20%+ of women in tech) in an amazing growth industry with great salaries and equivalent educational demands and negative unemployment. Oh wait, it isn't a horrible conspiracy to keep men out of nursing... it isn't some Orwellian scheme, it isn't evil feminists who like their girls club, it is disinterest and lack of role-models.
niggler 14y ago
"error establishing a database connection"
- Steuard 14y ago
  This is plausibly a duplicate: http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Ric...
  - gaylemcd 14y ago
    It is (or close enough)
- neotek 14y ago
  If you use Chrome, try the Cache extension. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cache/bnmfcdcicagaffaokphooddegagehcin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cache/bnmfcdcicaga...
rayiner 14y ago
Mirror: http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Ric...
YuriNiyazov 14y ago
Meh. I am not impressed by this teardown. There are many factors in this situation that one can argue about, but the one that to me is unarguably completely damning towards Adria's actions is this one: She posted a picture of many men. One of them is smiling at the camera. It just so happens that his smile happens to have that naughty "heh heh heh, did you hear that sick joke I just made?" look. Almost everyone on the Internet, me included, thought that the guy smiling was the perp. Turns out that it wasn't actually him at all, and that the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture. Regardless of what we may think of public shaming, or of what her role used to be at Sendgrid - Adria should've foreseen that everyone would think the smiling guy would be the suspect. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! She didn't deserve the rape and death threats, but to leave what she did without any consequences to her would be inappropriate, to say the least.
- misnome 14y ago
  It wasn't him? The one, obvious, center of attention of the photograph? That makes it even worse!
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    See what I mean? No, it's the guy in the grey shirt staring off.
    - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
      Apparently not. It's the other guy wearing the PH shirt, on way far out in the picture.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.
rayiner 14y ago
The author loses me right off the bat: "I personally wouldn’t really much care myself, but Adria’s right. This is a direct porn reference and doesn’t belong at a technical conference. Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds (and just I-think-it’s-morally-wrong-and-vile grounds)" As someone who cares deeply about getting women into traditionally male-dominated areas (starting from HS when I did robotics demos for elementary schoolers to now as the father of a daughter) I think it's unmitigated disaster for feminists to hitch their wagon to the broader "I'm easily offended by everything" movement. There is a crucial distinction between things that are offensive because they are sexist and things that are offensive because they are in bad taste--one perpetuates unfavorable gender-biased power dynamics and the other does not. Waging war on the whole panoply of things that might offend someone somewhere is dilutive and counter-productive. Movements that are effective at building coalitions are ruthlessly focused on the things that tie members of the coalition together. By taking on battles that are outside the core focus of how women are treated in tech, you lose the support of many people, especially women, who should be part of that coalition. PS. This rant is veering off onto "man telling women what to do" and for that I apologize. But my thoughts on the matter seem to be pretty consistent with, and are mostly informed by, the thinking of my wife and female friends, all professional women trying to make it in traditionally male-dominated fields.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  In general, I think there's far too much policing of language and I wish everyone was more relaxed about it. Having said that, "money shot" really is a clear reference to porn, and I was surprised to see it used in the way that it was. It's not inappropriate for every venue, but it seems pretty clear cut to say it's inappropriate for the title of a presentation at a tech conference.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Are you really sure about "money shot"? I know the porn reference, but I've heard it in multiple contexts over the years to refer to the photo (or in a more modern context video) that will sell it (whatever it is).
Zarathust 14y ago
This is a blog post about a blog post about a blog post about original events. The original events have been eclipsed a long time ago
anigbrowl 14y ago
Second, whereas the original XKCD comic painted one woman to be smart and the other one to be neutral intelligence-wise, this t-shirt comic paints both women to be stupid. Again, not something I would be especially bothered by, but I can see Adria’s point here. You have a technical(ish) conference where the t-shirt graphic portrays dumb women. This is probably not a good idea. Comic link: http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen-shot-2011-08-03-at-12-36-47-pm.png http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen-shot-2011-... I don't find either of these presenters stupid. They're just interested in different things, and focused on different audiences. My takeaway was that this conference had something for everyone, as opposed to being of interest only to all-rounders who are already power users. If your blogging skill is writing or photography or suchlike, you shouldn't need to be expert in SEO to get something out of a Wordpress conference, should you? Likewise, if crafting plugins is your thing, it shouldn't mater that your visual aesthetic starts and ends at a shell prompt. If I were ever to attend a Wordpress conference it would definitely be for the blogger track, and I wouldn't feel stupid for my complete lack of interest in the underlying framework.
gaylemcd 14y ago
MIRROR: http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Ric...
davidroberts 14y ago
I personally agree with the point about porn not belonging in a professional conference, but I would have cast my vote by skipping that presentation.
YuriNiyazov 14y ago
::sigh:: this article got shadowed off the front-page. And we were just getting started.
- 14113 14y ago
  Shadow? New to HN, and had noticed that it had dissipeared since I saw it. Some terminology I don't understand?
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    It means it doesn't have a [dead] thingie on top, and the link out to the original article still works so that all of us can still argue with each other, but as far as the rest of HN is concerned, this thing is unfindable.
    - niggler 14y ago
      It's sad to see this shadowed, since even after a week we as a community haven't fully come to terms with what happened.
    - 14113 14y ago
      Ah, I think I see, so people who are already aware of, and discussing it are able to, but later people are blissfully unaware of it.
  - vellum 14y ago
    If you hit "flag", it basically downvotes the article.
Steuard 14y ago
The clearest lesson I take from this article (and from this week's reaction on HN) is that it's very easy to feel defensive when someone accuses you of sexist behavior (or even someone you merely identify with). When that happens, a lot of folks lash out at the person who raised the issue, often more intensely than they deserve. I rather expect this is one of the factors that leads women not to speak up when they feel uncomfortable. That's bad, right?
- AdrianRossouw 14y ago
  a lot of my female friends are terrified of speaking up at conferences because they don't want to run afoul of people like adria richards. There are several recent, documented, cases where groups like the ada initiative are rather viciously attacking other women because they don't agree with them. People weren't lashing out at her because she raised an issue about perceived sexist behaviour, they lashed out at her because she was seen as being a bully. As a gay man, if I had a militant online following that I sic'ed on some random person because I heard them make a joke about Lisp at a conference.. I would hope that people would stand up to me about it.
dictum 14y ago
Porn is a thorny issue—there's really no need for a slide with softcore porn in a tech presentation unless it's a conference for developers of porn websites ;) However, the specific example Adria objected to ("Getting the Money Shot") is simply a pop culture reference. If I am a wireless network specialist and I name my presentation on wardriving "The Fog of Wardriving", it does not mean I endorse the military-industrial complex, imperialism, or the actions of the U.S. government. I'm just referencing something vaguely related, or making a dumb pun. It doesn't indicate that Danielle Morrill loves porn and wants everyone in the audience to start an orgy mid-conference, with live streaming. It's just a cultural reference. Also, while Adria has the right to not attend an event which does not follow her personal values, other people don't have any obligation to share her values. Danielle, or any other presenter, male or female, is free to not feel so strongly about porn. What I don't understand at all is Adria's questioning of the WordPress t-shirt. T-shirt: "Hey, as a developer, you don't have to care about content to love WordPress! And if you're a content creator, you don't have to care about software development to love WordPress." How is this misogynist, and how would this stop being misogynist if the comic had men instead of women?
- gaylemcd 14y ago
  It's more than just a pop culture reference. The fairly short abstract stated "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the ‘money shot." And, yes, obviously, Adria has the right to not attend. She ALSO has the right to say that you shouldn't have a talk that celebrates something that many people find utterly vile is not appropriate. I don't think Adria was ever alleging that what they were doing was illegal. We would all hopefully object to someone having a talk called "Taking Naked Kiddie Pics" with a line about "how thinking like a pedophile can capture people's imagination". I would hope that people wouldn't think it was inappropriate to speak up -- even petition -- against such a talk, right? That's my point. [NOTE: I am NOT saying that porn is as bad as kiddie porn. Of course it's not. The analogy I'm drawing is simply that we DO think it's okay to speak up about things that we think are vile or morally wrong. Many people (religious conservatives, etc) see porn that way.]
  - dictum 14y ago
ramblerman 14y ago
Jesus Christ already! The price of living in a free society is that you develop a hardened exterior. You don't get to hold a monopoly on being offended. Taking these little offenses and making them 'taboo' or even worse illegal belongs in the realm of dictatorships and theocracies. If putting 2 words together to form "Money Shot" is so powerful that it hurts your soul and torments your mind then you really may have a problem. Learn some self discipline and control and stop trying to bend the world to your will.
- gaylemcd 14y ago
  Did it hurt her soul and torment her mind? No. The talk was not only called "Getting the Money Shot" but suggested in the abstract "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the "'money shot.'" Many people (I am not one of them, to be clear) find porn very morally wrong. This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people). It's not appropriate for a talk, and it is okay to speak up about it. No one is talking about making it illegal.
  - ramblerman 14y ago
    > This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people). Religious people are also deeply offended by homosexuality, abortion and evolution theory. Should we cater to those "offenses" as well?
    - MetaCosm 14y ago
      Exactly, completely nailed it. Once you start catering to everyone who might be offended, where does it end... that is the real slippery slope. "It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -- Stephen Fry
      - gaylemcd 14y ago
hackernewbie 14y ago
The XKCD comic is about herpetology and ornithology. The revised one is about the difference between wordpress users and developers. Where on earth does either mention the intelligence or status of women?

27 points by henrik_w 14y ago

Two guys make fairly minor transgression at conference. In response, a woman makes fairly minor transgression as far as reporting it. Their companies appear to overreact, but who really knows since we don't know anything else about how these people did their jobs. Bloggers expend endless hours slicing and dicing the minute meanings of otherwise inconsequential things, hoping to peg blame where there simply might be none. Have I summarized this who episode about right?

pekk 14y ago
Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor, and posting said photograph to Twitter to enlist an army against someone is not minor at all. It's full scale bullying. The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd. Drowning people in death threats and DoS attacks over the internet is not minor either.
- niggler 14y ago
  "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor" It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent? "posting said photograph to Twitter" When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show) "enlist an army against someone" It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired. " It's full scale bullying." You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse. "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
    - niggler 14y ago
      I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol. She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 "I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
    - dalke 14y ago
      I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint? It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed. The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public? However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate? Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable. Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
- dalke 14y ago
  Please explain the statement "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor." PyCon has no prohibitions on taking photographs, and neither does the venue. Taking pictures in public without consent is legal, with only a small set of exceptions. PyCon by default inherits those rules, so I don't see how it's illegal. Perhaps have some moral code in mind? Here is a picture of people at PyCon 2013. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ . Do you think the photographer got permission from each of the people to take the picture? Here is a picture of Michael Foord and Guido van Rossum, where Foord's name tag is clearly visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ . Here's one of Shane Grigsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ , with name tag clearly visible. Do you think the respective photographers asked for permission to take the photo first? I doubt it, but it might be possible for those specific cases. I have taken many photographs at PyCon over the years, without asking for permission. Many photographs were taken of me, including this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ while I was speaking. I never granted Uhop permission to take the photograph. Under what basis do I have for complaining that it was illegal, immoral, or unjust for that photograph to be taken and published to flickr? I agree with "is really not minor" only if by that you mean "perfectly acceptable." However, I don't think that's what you mean. You imply that it's a serious ethical transgression. I don't understand how, so I request enlightenment.
- chasing 14y ago
  "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's not at all, really. Especially Adria, who called herself an "evangelist" at SendGrid. If your job is to evangelize something in a positive way and instead you piss off a bunch of people (fairly or unfairly), you're not really doing your job. Both of these people, Mr. Dongle and Adria, will land on their feet -- trust me. This is simply the sort of story that has just enough detail to push people's buttons and just enough lack of detail so we can fill in the blanks with our own fantasies and prejudices about who the people involved are and what actually happened.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Title VII protections for the workplace give protection against retaliation to people who make a complaint about sexual harassment. Even if it causes negative impact on the company. Even if the complaint was made in public. Even if it was in a workplace which was not under control of the company. She cannot legally be fired because of what happened. Since she was fired, this means that she could take her case to court, and the courts will almost certainly find in her favor. While I can and have talked about this elsewhere, it's best that you read what a lawyer says about this topic: http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and-retaliatory-termination-of-adria-richards.shtml http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and...
    - subsection1h 14y ago
      Can Adria be fired for stating publicly that SendGrid supported her complaints when in fact the company didn't support her complaints? https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328 If I have an employee who accuses an innocent co-worker of sexual harassment publicly and goes on to state that I support her accusation, when in fact I don't, can I not fire the employee?
      - dalke 14y ago
        "Can Adria be fired for stating publicly ..." It depends on several factors. A company cannot use a legitimate reason for firing someone as a pretext for an illegal reason to fire someone. The courts will ask questions like: Does the company have a policy that if an employee makes an incorrect statement like this then that person can be fired? Are there examples of other employees who made an incorrect statement but did not get fired? Here's the actual EEOC statement: > The anti-retaliation provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against any individual because s/he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or litigation under Title VII ... > The anti-discrimination statutes do not limit or condition in any way the protection against retaliation for participating in the charge process. While the opposition clause applies only to those who protest practices that they reasonably and in good faith believe are unlawful, the participation clause applies to all individuals who participate in the statutory complaint process. Thus, courts have consistently held that a respondent is liable for retaliating against an individual for filing an EEOC charge regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the charge\26. To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes. > Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity. "If I have an employee who ..." The law gives broad anti-retaliatory protections to someone who made a complaint. As I quoted above, the courts protect a claim made in good faith. "To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes." "Good faith" is given a very broad interpretation. It's not expected that an employee will know the Title VII laws, nor know if a certain practice is actually prohibited under the law. However, if it was not made in good faith (the wording is something like "no reasonable person would agree"), then that complaint does not have Title VII protections. Also, the employee may not make unreasonable forms of complaint. The EEOC writes: "[C]ourts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers\17; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints\18; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement.\19 Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. ... If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge." That tweet can be parsed in many ways. Does "support me" mean that the company agrees that hearing unwanted dirty jokes while at the workplace is a valid reason to complain? Does "support me" mean that the company supports her legitimate use of Title VII protections? Does "support me" mean that her supervisor told her she was supported by the company, but upper-level management later decided that she wasn't? Given that a company is supposed to support an employee's Title VII civil rights, I think that there is a reasonable person (the law says 'a reasonable person' not 'every reasonable person') who would say that tweet is nowhere near the bounds of what is impermissible in a Title VII action.
rmrfrmrf 14y ago
Any summary that minimizes the tech community's oppression of women is insufficient.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  Any comment that doesn't mention that she publicly shamed the wrong guy is an obvious troll attempt.
- dasil003 14y ago
  Come on now, he's being extremely charitable to Adria here. Some guys making a dongle joke is not oppression of women. It is at best a distant tangential symptom of the problem.
  - dalke 14y ago
    You are correct. The EEOC agrees with you. "Making a dongle joke is not oppression of women." In fact, a workplace where everyone cracks Benny Hill-style jokes full of sexual innuendo does not (according to the law) count as form of sexual harassment. Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC: "In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
- MetaCosm 14y ago
  Can we stop the drumbeat of victimization? You know what is really awful, the oppression of men in nursing! Less than 7% (versus 20%+ of women in tech) in an amazing growth industry with great salaries and equivalent educational demands and negative unemployment. Oh wait, it isn't a horrible conspiracy to keep men out of nursing... it isn't some Orwellian scheme, it isn't evil feminists who like their girls club, it is disinterest and lack of role-models.

niggler 14y ago

"error establishing a database connection"

Steuard 14y ago
This is plausibly a duplicate: http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Ric...
- gaylemcd 14y ago
  It is (or close enough)
neotek 14y ago
If you use Chrome, try the Cache extension. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cache/bnmfcdcicagaffaokphooddegagehcin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cache/bnmfcdcicaga...

rayiner 14y ago

Mirror: http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Ric...

YuriNiyazov 14y ago

Meh. I am not impressed by this teardown. There are many factors in this situation that one can argue about, but the one that to me is unarguably completely damning towards Adria's actions is this one: She posted a picture of many men. One of them is smiling at the camera. It just so happens that his smile happens to have that naughty "heh heh heh, did you hear that sick joke I just made?" look. Almost everyone on the Internet, me included, thought that the guy smiling was the perp. Turns out that it wasn't actually him at all, and that the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture. Regardless of what we may think of public shaming, or of what her role used to be at Sendgrid - Adria should've foreseen that everyone would think the smiling guy would be the suspect. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! She didn't deserve the rape and death threats, but to leave what she did without any consequences to her would be inappropriate, to say the least.

misnome 14y ago
It wasn't him? The one, obvious, center of attention of the photograph? That makes it even worse!
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  See what I mean? No, it's the guy in the grey shirt staring off.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    Apparently not. It's the other guy wearing the PH shirt, on way far out in the picture.
anigbrowl 14y ago
the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.

rayiner 14y ago

The author loses me right off the bat: "I personally wouldn’t really much care myself, but Adria’s right. This is a direct porn reference and doesn’t belong at a technical conference. Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds (and just I-think-it’s-morally-wrong-and-vile grounds)" As someone who cares deeply about getting women into traditionally male-dominated areas (starting from HS when I did robotics demos for elementary schoolers to now as the father of a daughter) I think it's unmitigated disaster for feminists to hitch their wagon to the broader "I'm easily offended by everything" movement. There is a crucial distinction between things that are offensive because they are sexist and things that are offensive because they are in bad taste--one perpetuates unfavorable gender-biased power dynamics and the other does not. Waging war on the whole panoply of things that might offend someone somewhere is dilutive and counter-productive. Movements that are effective at building coalitions are ruthlessly focused on the things that tie members of the coalition together. By taking on battles that are outside the core focus of how women are treated in tech, you lose the support of many people, especially women, who should be part of that coalition. PS. This rant is veering off onto "man telling women what to do" and for that I apologize. But my thoughts on the matter seem to be pretty consistent with, and are mostly informed by, the thinking of my wife and female friends, all professional women trying to make it in traditionally male-dominated fields.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
In general, I think there's far too much policing of language and I wish everyone was more relaxed about it. Having said that, "money shot" really is a clear reference to porn, and I was surprised to see it used in the way that it was. It's not inappropriate for every venue, but it seems pretty clear cut to say it's inappropriate for the title of a presentation at a tech conference.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Are you really sure about "money shot"? I know the porn reference, but I've heard it in multiple contexts over the years to refer to the photo (or in a more modern context video) that will sell it (whatever it is).

Zarathust 14y ago

This is a blog post about a blog post about a blog post about original events. The original events have been eclipsed a long time ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

Second, whereas the original XKCD comic painted one woman to be smart and the other one to be neutral intelligence-wise, this t-shirt comic paints both women to be stupid. Again, not something I would be especially bothered by, but I can see Adria’s point here. You have a technical(ish) conference where the t-shirt graphic portrays dumb women. This is probably not a good idea. Comic link: http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen-shot-2011-08-03-at-12-36-47-pm.png http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen-shot-2011-... I don't find either of these presenters stupid. They're just interested in different things, and focused on different audiences. My takeaway was that this conference had something for everyone, as opposed to being of interest only to all-rounders who are already power users. If your blogging skill is writing or photography or suchlike, you shouldn't need to be expert in SEO to get something out of a Wordpress conference, should you? Likewise, if crafting plugins is your thing, it shouldn't mater that your visual aesthetic starts and ends at a shell prompt. If I were ever to attend a Wordpress conference it would definitely be for the blogger track, and I wouldn't feel stupid for my complete lack of interest in the underlying framework.

gaylemcd 14y ago

MIRROR: http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Richards-is-Not-What-It-Seems http://gayle.quora.com/That-Amanda-Blum-Article-on-Adria-Ric...

davidroberts 14y ago

I personally agree with the point about porn not belonging in a professional conference, but I would have cast my vote by skipping that presentation.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago

::sigh:: this article got shadowed off the front-page. And we were just getting started.

14113 14y ago
Shadow? New to HN, and had noticed that it had dissipeared since I saw it. Some terminology I don't understand?
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  It means it doesn't have a [dead] thingie on top, and the link out to the original article still works so that all of us can still argue with each other, but as far as the rest of HN is concerned, this thing is unfindable.
  - niggler 14y ago
    It's sad to see this shadowed, since even after a week we as a community haven't fully come to terms with what happened.
  - 14113 14y ago
    Ah, I think I see, so people who are already aware of, and discussing it are able to, but later people are blissfully unaware of it.
- vellum 14y ago
  If you hit "flag", it basically downvotes the article.

Steuard 14y ago

The clearest lesson I take from this article (and from this week's reaction on HN) is that it's very easy to feel defensive when someone accuses you of sexist behavior (or even someone you merely identify with). When that happens, a lot of folks lash out at the person who raised the issue, often more intensely than they deserve. I rather expect this is one of the factors that leads women not to speak up when they feel uncomfortable. That's bad, right?

AdrianRossouw 14y ago
a lot of my female friends are terrified of speaking up at conferences because they don't want to run afoul of people like adria richards. There are several recent, documented, cases where groups like the ada initiative are rather viciously attacking other women because they don't agree with them. People weren't lashing out at her because she raised an issue about perceived sexist behaviour, they lashed out at her because she was seen as being a bully. As a gay man, if I had a militant online following that I sic'ed on some random person because I heard them make a joke about Lisp at a conference.. I would hope that people would stand up to me about it.

dictum 14y ago

Porn is a thorny issue—there's really no need for a slide with softcore porn in a tech presentation unless it's a conference for developers of porn websites ;) However, the specific example Adria objected to ("Getting the Money Shot") is simply a pop culture reference. If I am a wireless network specialist and I name my presentation on wardriving "The Fog of Wardriving", it does not mean I endorse the military-industrial complex, imperialism, or the actions of the U.S. government. I'm just referencing something vaguely related, or making a dumb pun. It doesn't indicate that Danielle Morrill loves porn and wants everyone in the audience to start an orgy mid-conference, with live streaming. It's just a cultural reference. Also, while Adria has the right to not attend an event which does not follow her personal values, other people don't have any obligation to share her values. Danielle, or any other presenter, male or female, is free to not feel so strongly about porn. What I don't understand at all is Adria's questioning of the WordPress t-shirt. T-shirt: "Hey, as a developer, you don't have to care about content to love WordPress! And if you're a content creator, you don't have to care about software development to love WordPress." How is this misogynist, and how would this stop being misogynist if the comic had men instead of women?

gaylemcd 14y ago
It's more than just a pop culture reference. The fairly short abstract stated "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the ‘money shot." And, yes, obviously, Adria has the right to not attend. She ALSO has the right to say that you shouldn't have a talk that celebrates something that many people find utterly vile is not appropriate. I don't think Adria was ever alleging that what they were doing was illegal. We would all hopefully object to someone having a talk called "Taking Naked Kiddie Pics" with a line about "how thinking like a pedophile can capture people's imagination". I would hope that people wouldn't think it was inappropriate to speak up -- even petition -- against such a talk, right? That's my point. [NOTE: I am NOT saying that porn is as bad as kiddie porn. Of course it's not. The analogy I'm drawing is simply that we DO think it's okay to speak up about things that we think are vile or morally wrong. Many people (religious conservatives, etc) see porn that way.]
- dictum 14y ago

ramblerman 14y ago

Jesus Christ already! The price of living in a free society is that you develop a hardened exterior. You don't get to hold a monopoly on being offended. Taking these little offenses and making them 'taboo' or even worse illegal belongs in the realm of dictatorships and theocracies. If putting 2 words together to form "Money Shot" is so powerful that it hurts your soul and torments your mind then you really may have a problem. Learn some self discipline and control and stop trying to bend the world to your will.

gaylemcd 14y ago
Did it hurt her soul and torment her mind? No. The talk was not only called "Getting the Money Shot" but suggested in the abstract "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the "'money shot.'" Many people (I am not one of them, to be clear) find porn very morally wrong. This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people). It's not appropriate for a talk, and it is okay to speak up about it. No one is talking about making it illegal.
- ramblerman 14y ago
  > This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people). Religious people are also deeply offended by homosexuality, abortion and evolution theory. Should we cater to those "offenses" as well?
  - MetaCosm 14y ago
    Exactly, completely nailed it. Once you start catering to everyone who might be offended, where does it end... that is the real slippery slope. "It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -- Stephen Fry
    - gaylemcd 14y ago

hackernewbie 14y ago

The XKCD comic is about herpetology and ornithology. The revised one is about the difference between wordpress users and developers. Where on earth does either mention the intelligence or status of women?