4 ms·

I don't think Richards should be part of that list of examples. The others named in the article were assaulted and generally treated very badly. So was Richards

• pasbesoin 13y ago
  Society is entirely schizophrenic on this point. On the one hand, we use sex to sell everything under the sun. (And, for that matter, the sun itself -- come visit [insert sunny low-latitude vacation destination here]!) On the other hand, we can't even consider it. At work, in professional circles, etc. (At least, not "overtly". There's a lot of "covert" use in play, though. From both sexes. Physically attractive people, both anecdote and now studies show, get ahead.) On the third hand... We are supposed to be "totally committed". (Or, we were supposed to be in the last decade -- I start to lose track.) You're not a quality employee if you aren't putting in 60 hours a week. Wait, you're not worthwhile if you don't own your own company. Work life, personal life -- there is no dichotomy. There can be only one! (Work) So... radically, almost diametrically opposed viewpoints. And we are supposed to conveniently segregate them depending upon where we are and/or what we are doing. Only... we increasingly aren't supposed to segregate those very activities and locations. Bah... I'm all for treating people well. And I think that starts with divorcing ourselves from a lot of this -- both current and perennial -- cultural crap. The only solution I can really think of is transparency. Don't lie to your kids, students, employees about how the world works. Hopefully, informed people are more likely and more empowered to behave as responsible adults. Respecting both others and themselves. -- P.S. I wrote this fairly quickly and on the basis of quickly reading the parent comment. I'll have to read through things more carefully, now. I see that the article starts out describing a literal assault. I do not condone that nor mean to imply with my already-written comment that we can merely... "examine" ourselves out of all such circumstances. All the same, a lot of the messaging in our society seems, by design or side-effect or both, to misinform. And to omit much needed conversation and correction before we reach the point of assault. I think of the... scumbag behavior I so often encountered in school and at college. When you're a young person and without good role models, it can be hard to figure out how to deal with that. And sometimes, even what to think of it. Type A or whatever personalities often make a certain amount of headway just by outright aggressiveness and intimidation. Also, as a male, I've been in the perhaps somewhat less prevalent position of being manipulated by a world-class female user. Perhaps we are at the vanguard of having another serious, cultural conversation about all this. Hopefully, for the better. Shine a light on it. Put it in context. Help people to see and find a better way.
• Ixiaus 13y ago
  TBH, I would guess that "brogrammers" actually comprise a very small number of trade show perpetrators due to the fact that they may generally have more social access to women outside of the work place. Many of the geeks I meet were and are socially very awkward people, social ineptness is (sometimes) correlated with ineptness in interacting with women. I would say (again, a guess) a "brogrammer" has less interest in sexually assaulting a woman at a trade show then a sexually deprived and socially inept geek does; you'll find brogrammers at bars and clubs where it seems the lewd treatment of women that aren't aware of their bodies due to drugs and alcohol is the norm. Mind you, I'm not nearly saying all geeks are like this - I consider myself to be a reclusive geek but have the utmost respect for women and I have yet to meet another programmer that hasn't shared that mentality with me. (it makes me sad when so many trolls come out to bash - whether justified or not, it isn't a civilized conversation)
  • Udo 13y ago
    I agree with you, but I don't think sex perps are statistically prevalent in either group, they are probably in a group by themselves. While the typical brogrammer is absolutely capable of making lewd remarks, it's unlikely he will engage in aggressive acts, because he is already very successful with women - why would he want to jeopardize that. Like you, I would also consider myself a reclusive geek, and probably like you I wouldn't even consider that kind of behavior, not only because it's wrong and frowned-upon, but because the thought of doing this would never occur to me. Most geeks I know fall somewhere in this spectrum between "ladies man" and "recluse", but I can see none of them exhibiting the kind of behavior we're talking about. Hence I believe there must be a third group of people who are, for lack of a better term, insane beneath their fake exterior.
    • Ixiaus 13y ago
      I agree with your analysis :)