7 ms·

Why I asked to be removed from the Techweek 100

47 points by seanjohnson 12y ago

sp332 12y ago
Asking as one of these apparently tone-deaf guys, can someone be specific about what's bad here? Was Techweek for throwing the party, or the women dressing that way, or deciding to pose that way for photos, or Techweek putting the photos on Facebook, or choosing the photos for the invite?
- glenda 12y ago
  It's mainly just about the way Techweek chose to present themselves. They had the opportunity to pick anything and that's the one they ended up with - to me that is definitely poor judgement regardless of whether you're offended by the image or not.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    So you're saying that this is mainly a political maneuver to further punish Techweek because they aren't bowing deeply enough? (Even though it's couched in the language of a moral crusade for sexual equality.)
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  The chosen image creates the impression that women at parties are the "entertainment," and/or are sex objects. It also sends a belittling and hostile message to any women who may be planning to attend. And in general, it's in pretty poor taste for an industry event. It feels like the kind of flier I'd expect to have shoved into my hands while walking down the strip in Las Vegas on New Year's Eve. As men, we are so frequently accustomed to seeing images like this that we don't really see what's so bad about them. That's more of the point of the blog post, at least as I read it. It's a good point. This sort of thing won't strike most male readers as all that big a deal, and that's part of the issue.
  - outside1234 12y ago
    How does it do that? Serious question! The people in the picture are having fun at a party at one of those photo shoot stations that is at every black tie party.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      Those strike me as models, not party attendees, presumably paid to pose for that photo, or to be at some event in which the photo was taken. They are not dressed in black tie attire; they are dressed in a sexy, posed, clearly pre-coordinated "booth babe" take on black tie. I could be wrong, but that's the impression the photo gives me.
      - kristofferR 12y ago
        So is the issue that there's no guys in the picture or that the women are too beautiful?
        domdip 12y ago
        Neither. You can add a leering guy to the picture and it will still be offensive. There are probably pictures with beautiful women that would not be offensive. The 'issue' has been described several times in the comments and in the original article. Trying to reduce it to one feature isn't helpful.
        kristofferR 12y ago
        The original article says nothing at all about what the problem is and the comments here says a lot of different things, most doesn't make any sense at all (complaining about sexualizing a rave...).
      - sp332 12y ago
        Techweek specifically said they were attendees posing in a photo booth. You might question that, but would it make a difference?
- startupstella 12y ago
  The problem is that the women are overtly sexualized. Which is fine if the ad is for a strip club. But it's not...it's for a tech event. Context is key here. We've been desensitized by accepting these images of women as normal...they're not. And especially not for a tech event.
  - dubfan 12y ago
    Ok, but is the solution for all men to self-flagellate and feel guilty about their sexualities? It seems like his reaction is an extreme non-sequitur that will only lead to unhappiness.
    - startupstella 12y ago
      Not at all. Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event. It's not about sex, it's about tech. And making everything sexualized to attract attendees is the problem.
      - trhway 12y ago
        >Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event. why? who decided it? and how it can realistically be done - forced ingestion of chemical castration pills by all the attendees? Wherever you have people, you'll have sexuality. May be oppressed, yet it still will be there. Only mister Data could turn his emotions chip off, and even he liked to have it on. When people do such blanket statements without firm grounding in reason and facts, usually it is a statement of power, ie. in this context it would mean "Sexuality [of people/group i designate as such] is irrelevant ..."
  - sp332 12y ago
    Actually, it's an invitation to a party at a nightclub. And again, these women dressed themselves and went to a similar party in Miami. To be clear, telling women that they are "not normal" is actually discouraging them from attending, not to mention being really judgemental.
    - 12y ago
- ronaldx 12y ago
  I don't see what good will come of this, but I will try genuinely to help you nonetheless. Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts undone to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately equivalent? If not, you might like to consider why that choice of image would be uncomfortable for you and that this particular choice of image might be uncomfortable for others. If you bite the bullet (well done!), there are further problems. This is an event to launch a high school seniors employment initiative. High school and sexualised imagery don't belong together.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Interesting point about the target age group. Where did you find that?
    - ronaldx 12y ago
      No answer to my question but you ask your own? IMO you're wilfully avoiding the point about the appropriateness of sexualised imagery in general, but nonetheless I'll answer your question: from the original source. http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-controversy-images-of-women-bsi,0,0.story http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-contr... "Gather with us as we celebrate the launch of our charity initiative with Urban Alliance, the only year long employment program for under resourced high school seniors in Chicago." Excuse any transcription error.
      - sp332 12y ago
        Ah, thanks. Your question seems incredibly irrelevant. Yes, putting partying people on a party invite seems like the most natural thing to do. The women are clothed, so I'm not sure why you think a shirtless guy is equivalent. But more to the point, I think putting sexy guys having fun on a party invite would make exactly as much sense as this one. But it would have the disadvantage of not showing women that they can show up and have a good time too.
outside1234 12y ago
Is it impossible for women to be beautiful and be competent and have fun at a rave party? Can we not have pictures of people at a rave now? Or do they need to be boring? Or have ugly people?
- aiiane 12y ago
  What a wonderful strawman.
  - outside1234 12y ago
    I'm asking a serious question. Is it not possible to be smart beautiful and have fun at a rave party? My experience is mostly with the JavaScript community where there are many smart beautiful people of both genders that have fun. Should we only show photographs of the males? If so, isn't that sexist?
    - hitchhiker999 12y ago
      There is indeed a tendency to go over board, and end up with the equally disgusting polar opposite. We're not there yet. For now, we probably just need to nip it all in the bud, at least until we've grown up enough to handle sexuality without using it as a form of gender oppression.
    - lucideer 12y ago
      It may be a strawman but as there is such a disturbing prevalence of similar comments on this thread, a response: Yes it is possible to be beautiful and have fun at a rave party, whether you are a beautiful male or a beautiful female (or otherwise). However, were these two peopel selected at random or were they hired, dressed and asked to pose specifically for their looks and gender? I don't seriously believe that you think its the former - you're not naïve, just combative.
      - the_hangman 12y ago
        While I'm not saying they were chosen at random, the photos were from the TechWeek Miami event. They've been on TechWeek's Facebook page without any sort of problems since March.
Peroni 12y ago
>As a boss, I’ve deliberately tried to hire women to counteract the male-dominated work tech environments I’ve seen and been a part of. I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but here in the UK, that element of 'affirmative action' is illegal.
- pyre 12y ago
  Depends on what he means. He could just mean that he made extra efforts to make sure that his candidate pool for the job wasn't just men. He could also mean that in a tie for qualifications (between a man and a woman), he would hire the woman; which, while possibly illegal to the letter of the law (in the UK, possibly elsewhere), doesn't seem like a horrible thing. He explicitly states that it's to counter-act male-skewed tech work environments, so presumably if the work place were 50/50 men-to-women, he would relax this preference to women (as a tie-breaker).
  - Peroni 12y ago
    I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out the fact that his approach, even by your suggested guidelines, is still very much illegal in the UK. Legality to one side, I would be interested in hearing more about this. Surely any hiring decision that's even remotely swayed by gender opposes the entire concept of gender equality?
    - andrewfree 12y ago
      If he is trying to prefer women to help balance out the team I would think he is trying to maintain gender equality in another respect.
    - ronaldx 12y ago
      > very much illegal in the UK. I question this. Neither I nor Wikipedia should be used for legal advice, but there are exceptions to discrimination law, and the parent's comment seems to precisely meet one of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_employment_discrimination_law#Positive_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_employment_discrimination_l...
dueprocess 12y ago
These typical ads portrait women as play-things to be gawked at rather than someone's daughter, wife and another human being. And they are plain dumb. But it's so prevalent nowadays that it hardly registers in a conscious way, and I think that's the problem. As an LDS Christian I go to church and won't watch R rated movies, but even I feel like I've become numb to this kind of objectification of women. And I think it's a serious, serious problem in this society.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > These typical ads portrait women as play-things to be gawked at rather than someone's daughter, wife and another human being. Now here's an objectification - why a woman needs to be someone's wife or daughter? Men on similar pictures are usually also portrayed as models, not husbands or sons. Isn't that sexist? Isn't that misandry? Honestly, I find most of those gender-related discussions nonsense; it's like autoimmune disease - instead of fighting only diseases, the immune system starts attacking everything around it. You just can't say anything at all about women without being labeled misogynist. I read an interesting essay on the topic today: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html. It's not only (or even mostly) about gender issues, but the key quote from the ending: "My view on feminism isn't really driven by my view on gender relations or women or men or society. It's driven by my view on applause lights, on inability to urge restraint, on death spirals, on anti-charity, on zero-threshold medical testing, on superweapons, and most of all on epistemic hygiene. I don't care how righteous your cause is, you don't get a superweapon so powerful it can pre-emptively vaporize any possible counterargument including the one asking you to please turn off your superweapon and listen for just a second. No one should be able to do that."
  - startupstella 12y ago
    HA! I would love if you could find me a tech event that features overtly sexualized men on the advertisement. That's a challenge.
    - mackwic 12y ago
Permit 12y ago
Reminds me of the opposite of the sexism LinkedIn was accused of[1]. It'd have been interesting if the two individuals in the posted pictures had been developers as well. I wonder if that would have changed the dynamic of the conversation at all. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-accused-of-sexism-for-banning-an-ad-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-accused-of-sexism-fo...
- startupstella 12y ago
  I assure you if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like that. Unless the tech event had a sexual theme.
  - dubfan 12y ago
    Why? Because developers are all asexual and inhibited?
    - startupstella 12y ago
      Because it's a tech event. When was the last time you saw someone wear a playboy bunny outfit to a tech event?
      - sp332 12y ago
        The point of this party (if you read the small print in the image) is to have a fun charity event strictly before the conference starts. It is explicitly outside the timeline of the "tech event." if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like that. You seem to be ignoring the fact that they did exactly that.
      - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
        You might want to google "playboy bunny outfit images" because I don't think you know how much less material there is in one of those than in what the women are wearing in the Techweek invite. The Techweek invite images actually show very little skin.
etchalon 12y ago
So, to promote a party, Techweek used images from the same party last year, of actual people who attended the party last year. That they chose to use attractive, well-dressed women, who looked like they were having fun, is somehow offensive. I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this.
- danielharan 12y ago
  Were they actual attendees, or is that an assumption?
  - etchalon 12y ago
    TechWeek claims they were: http://techweek.com/a-note-to-our-community/ http://techweek.com/a-note-to-our-community/ I'm taking them at their word. "The photo in question was taken from a series of photos of event attendees that were posted on our Facebook page in March. These photos were taken at a photo booth featuring top hats, bow-ties, and other fun black-tie related props. It was used with the intent to promote and encourage attendance at the inaugural event here in Chicago." Re-reading it, it might not have been this exact party/event, but it's clear that it's not just some stock photography of pretty women.
  - sp332 12y ago
    To promote the upcoming event in Chicago, we’ve used photos of attendees at a photo booth at the inaugural event in Miami in March. http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-controversy-images-of-women-bsi,0,0.story http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-contr...
- ronaldx 12y ago
  I believe "1st annual" has a specific meaning which you seem to have missed.
  - the_hangman 12y ago
    It was from their Miami event from earlier this year; the photos have been on TachWeek's Facebook for a few months.
kirinkalia 12y ago
The Techweek drama aside, what do you think of Sean's post? I admire and applaud his bravery in admitting he hasn't done enough in the past and will do better in the future.
- a-t-shirt 12y ago
  77.8%. In the United States, 77.8% of homicide victims are male. But no, Sean is having a public anxiety attack because a company chose a photograph of two actual attendees in a photo booth who chose chose to dress slightly more provocatively than his sensibilities allow. Sean isn't being brave. He's sucking up to women in an extremely politically expedient way.
- sp332 12y ago
  True! It seems slightly hypocritical though. I think Techweek reacted pretty much the same way - accidentally did something offensive and reacted quickly when it was pointed out - but he's not willing to forgive them.
a-t-shirt 12y ago
The #YesAllWomen campaign opened my eyes, too. When three men and three women are murdered, we focus completely on the women. When men are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victim of homicides, violent crime (including violent crime from strangers), we instead choose to have a society-wide struggle session[1] on the plight of western women. Western culture is hypersensitive to women's issues. In particular, hyper-affluent White men seem to derive some carnal pleasure from throwing other men under the bus. As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of men, and as long as Twitter/HN activists mock anyone who points out the compassion disparity ("WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?"), we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
- seldo 12y ago
  > As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of men ... we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality. I'm unclear on your thesis here: is your position that the reason women are disadvantaged in society in general and tech in particular because we "care more about the plight of women"? Because that seems illogical. But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion. Your account is 6 days old, of course, so I may be just feeding a troll here.
  - a-t-shirt 12y ago
    > But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion. For men and women born since the mid-1980s, absolutely. And crime, education, and income statistics support my assertion.
    - seldo 12y ago
      It is possible for it to be simultaneously true that men are more frequently victims of violent crime, perform worse in standardized tests, and earn less than women[1] and also that women are more frequently the victims of sexual assault[2] and other forms of harassment, prevented from taking the careers of their choice[3], and subject to a greater degree of criticism in the media for the same actions[4]. The existence of things that are bad for men does mean that men have things harder than women. The fact that there are things we should fix for men does not mean we can ignore the things that are broken for women. This is not a zero-sum game, and it is not productive to determine who "has it worse". There are things that are bad for women that happen to women, and we should stop those things happening without questioning whether they are "deserving" of doing so. [1] Though I have never seen any stats that back up this last assertion, ever. [2] https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-... [3] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.ht... [4] http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/03/how-we-criticize-men-vs-how-we-criticize-women/ http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/03/how-we-criticize...
jakejake 12y ago
I don't find the photo particularly scandalous, but taken in the context of the tech industry issues with sexism, it definitely shows a lack of awareness on the part of the organizers. I would hate to see us become so politically correct that we can't show a picture of people having fun to advertise a party. But, it's not that hard to find stock images of both men and women who are attractive, having fun together and not dressed up like playboy models kissing one another.
ryguytilidie 12y ago
Woah, tons of straw men in here. If you read this and believe that the fact that they chose attractive women is the problem, than you should probably either reread it or stop having opinions about things.
- outside1234 12y ago
  Ok, I'm confused, if that isn't the problem, then what is?
_deh 12y ago
Leaving the gratuitous sexism to one side briefly - a Black Tie Rave... 'champagne and caviar paired with glowsticks'... I ask you. And from the city that gave the world house music.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
zaqokm 12y ago
Due to recent complaints the black tie ball is now and Amish style. This is to prevent the objectification of women by making them less appealing. Call me ignorant (although I would rather refer to myself as not really focused or caring on the matter), that just because there are 2 good looking woman promoting an event which hopefully should also be fun does not make it objectifying women. Maybe people are just paying to much attention to the small things.

47 points by seanjohnson 12y ago

sp332 12y ago

Asking as one of these apparently tone-deaf guys, can someone be specific about what's bad here? Was Techweek for throwing the party, or the women dressing that way, or deciding to pose that way for photos, or Techweek putting the photos on Facebook, or choosing the photos for the invite?

glenda 12y ago
It's mainly just about the way Techweek chose to present themselves. They had the opportunity to pick anything and that's the one they ended up with - to me that is definitely poor judgement regardless of whether you're offended by the image or not.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  So you're saying that this is mainly a political maneuver to further punish Techweek because they aren't bowing deeply enough? (Even though it's couched in the language of a moral crusade for sexual equality.)
jonnathanson 12y ago
The chosen image creates the impression that women at parties are the "entertainment," and/or are sex objects. It also sends a belittling and hostile message to any women who may be planning to attend. And in general, it's in pretty poor taste for an industry event. It feels like the kind of flier I'd expect to have shoved into my hands while walking down the strip in Las Vegas on New Year's Eve. As men, we are so frequently accustomed to seeing images like this that we don't really see what's so bad about them. That's more of the point of the blog post, at least as I read it. It's a good point. This sort of thing won't strike most male readers as all that big a deal, and that's part of the issue.
- outside1234 12y ago
  How does it do that? Serious question! The people in the picture are having fun at a party at one of those photo shoot stations that is at every black tie party.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Those strike me as models, not party attendees, presumably paid to pose for that photo, or to be at some event in which the photo was taken. They are not dressed in black tie attire; they are dressed in a sexy, posed, clearly pre-coordinated "booth babe" take on black tie. I could be wrong, but that's the impression the photo gives me.
    - kristofferR 12y ago
      So is the issue that there's no guys in the picture or that the women are too beautiful?
      - domdip 12y ago
        Neither. You can add a leering guy to the picture and it will still be offensive. There are probably pictures with beautiful women that would not be offensive. The 'issue' has been described several times in the comments and in the original article. Trying to reduce it to one feature isn't helpful.
        kristofferR 12y ago
        The original article says nothing at all about what the problem is and the comments here says a lot of different things, most doesn't make any sense at all (complaining about sexualizing a rave...).
    - sp332 12y ago
      Techweek specifically said they were attendees posing in a photo booth. You might question that, but would it make a difference?
startupstella 12y ago
The problem is that the women are overtly sexualized. Which is fine if the ad is for a strip club. But it's not...it's for a tech event. Context is key here. We've been desensitized by accepting these images of women as normal...they're not. And especially not for a tech event.
- dubfan 12y ago
  Ok, but is the solution for all men to self-flagellate and feel guilty about their sexualities? It seems like his reaction is an extreme non-sequitur that will only lead to unhappiness.
  - startupstella 12y ago
    Not at all. Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event. It's not about sex, it's about tech. And making everything sexualized to attract attendees is the problem.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event. why? who decided it? and how it can realistically be done - forced ingestion of chemical castration pills by all the attendees? Wherever you have people, you'll have sexuality. May be oppressed, yet it still will be there. Only mister Data could turn his emotions chip off, and even he liked to have it on. When people do such blanket statements without firm grounding in reason and facts, usually it is a statement of power, ie. in this context it would mean "Sexuality [of people/group i designate as such] is irrelevant ..."
- sp332 12y ago
  Actually, it's an invitation to a party at a nightclub. And again, these women dressed themselves and went to a similar party in Miami. To be clear, telling women that they are "not normal" is actually discouraging them from attending, not to mention being really judgemental.
  - 12y ago
ronaldx 12y ago
I don't see what good will come of this, but I will try genuinely to help you nonetheless. Would you be happy (rather than surprised) to see a photo of two male models on your invite to this event in the same style? Maybe with their shirts undone to their waist, sharing a kiss, anything that's approximately equivalent? If not, you might like to consider why that choice of image would be uncomfortable for you and that this particular choice of image might be uncomfortable for others. If you bite the bullet (well done!), there are further problems. This is an event to launch a high school seniors employment initiative. High school and sexualised imagery don't belong together.
- sp332 12y ago
  Interesting point about the target age group. Where did you find that?
  - ronaldx 12y ago
    No answer to my question but you ask your own? IMO you're wilfully avoiding the point about the appropriateness of sexualised imagery in general, but nonetheless I'll answer your question: from the original source. http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-controversy-images-of-women-bsi,0,0.story http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-contr... "Gather with us as we celebrate the launch of our charity initiative with Urban Alliance, the only year long employment program for under resourced high school seniors in Chicago." Excuse any transcription error.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Ah, thanks. Your question seems incredibly irrelevant. Yes, putting partying people on a party invite seems like the most natural thing to do. The women are clothed, so I'm not sure why you think a shirtless guy is equivalent. But more to the point, I think putting sexy guys having fun on a party invite would make exactly as much sense as this one. But it would have the disadvantage of not showing women that they can show up and have a good time too.

outside1234 12y ago

Is it impossible for women to be beautiful and be competent and have fun at a rave party? Can we not have pictures of people at a rave now? Or do they need to be boring? Or have ugly people?

aiiane 12y ago
What a wonderful strawman.
- outside1234 12y ago
  I'm asking a serious question. Is it not possible to be smart beautiful and have fun at a rave party? My experience is mostly with the JavaScript community where there are many smart beautiful people of both genders that have fun. Should we only show photographs of the males? If so, isn't that sexist?
  - hitchhiker999 12y ago
    There is indeed a tendency to go over board, and end up with the equally disgusting polar opposite. We're not there yet. For now, we probably just need to nip it all in the bud, at least until we've grown up enough to handle sexuality without using it as a form of gender oppression.
  - lucideer 12y ago
    It may be a strawman but as there is such a disturbing prevalence of similar comments on this thread, a response: Yes it is possible to be beautiful and have fun at a rave party, whether you are a beautiful male or a beautiful female (or otherwise). However, were these two peopel selected at random or were they hired, dressed and asked to pose specifically for their looks and gender? I don't seriously believe that you think its the former - you're not naïve, just combative.
    - the_hangman 12y ago
      While I'm not saying they were chosen at random, the photos were from the TechWeek Miami event. They've been on TechWeek's Facebook page without any sort of problems since March.

Peroni 12y ago

>As a boss, I’ve deliberately tried to hire women to counteract the male-dominated work tech environments I’ve seen and been a part of. I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but here in the UK, that element of 'affirmative action' is illegal.

pyre 12y ago
Depends on what he means. He could just mean that he made extra efforts to make sure that his candidate pool for the job wasn't just men. He could also mean that in a tie for qualifications (between a man and a woman), he would hire the woman; which, while possibly illegal to the letter of the law (in the UK, possibly elsewhere), doesn't seem like a horrible thing. He explicitly states that it's to counter-act male-skewed tech work environments, so presumably if the work place were 50/50 men-to-women, he would relax this preference to women (as a tie-breaker).
- Peroni 12y ago
  I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out the fact that his approach, even by your suggested guidelines, is still very much illegal in the UK. Legality to one side, I would be interested in hearing more about this. Surely any hiring decision that's even remotely swayed by gender opposes the entire concept of gender equality?
  - andrewfree 12y ago
    If he is trying to prefer women to help balance out the team I would think he is trying to maintain gender equality in another respect.
  - ronaldx 12y ago
    > very much illegal in the UK. I question this. Neither I nor Wikipedia should be used for legal advice, but there are exceptions to discrimination law, and the parent's comment seems to precisely meet one of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_employment_discrimination_law#Positive_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_employment_discrimination_l...

dueprocess 12y ago

These typical ads portrait women as play-things to be gawked at rather than someone's daughter, wife and another human being. And they are plain dumb. But it's so prevalent nowadays that it hardly registers in a conscious way, and I think that's the problem. As an LDS Christian I go to church and won't watch R rated movies, but even I feel like I've become numb to this kind of objectification of women. And I think it's a serious, serious problem in this society.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
> These typical ads portrait women as play-things to be gawked at rather than someone's daughter, wife and another human being. Now here's an objectification - why a woman needs to be someone's wife or daughter? Men on similar pictures are usually also portrayed as models, not husbands or sons. Isn't that sexist? Isn't that misandry? Honestly, I find most of those gender-related discussions nonsense; it's like autoimmune disease - instead of fighting only diseases, the immune system starts attacking everything around it. You just can't say anything at all about women without being labeled misogynist. I read an interesting essay on the topic today: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html. It's not only (or even mostly) about gender issues, but the key quote from the ending: "My view on feminism isn't really driven by my view on gender relations or women or men or society. It's driven by my view on applause lights, on inability to urge restraint, on death spirals, on anti-charity, on zero-threshold medical testing, on superweapons, and most of all on epistemic hygiene. I don't care how righteous your cause is, you don't get a superweapon so powerful it can pre-emptively vaporize any possible counterargument including the one asking you to please turn off your superweapon and listen for just a second. No one should be able to do that."
- startupstella 12y ago
  HA! I would love if you could find me a tech event that features overtly sexualized men on the advertisement. That's a challenge.
  - mackwic 12y ago

Permit 12y ago

Reminds me of the opposite of the sexism LinkedIn was accused of[1]. It'd have been interesting if the two individuals in the posted pictures had been developers as well. I wonder if that would have changed the dynamic of the conversation at all. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-accused-of-sexism-for-banning-an-ad-2013-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-accused-of-sexism-fo...

startupstella 12y ago
I assure you if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like that. Unless the tech event had a sexual theme.
- dubfan 12y ago
  Why? Because developers are all asexual and inhibited?
  - startupstella 12y ago
    Because it's a tech event. When was the last time you saw someone wear a playboy bunny outfit to a tech event?
    - sp332 12y ago
      The point of this party (if you read the small print in the image) is to have a fun charity event strictly before the conference starts. It is explicitly outside the timeline of the "tech event." if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like that. You seem to be ignoring the fact that they did exactly that.
    - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
      You might want to google "playboy bunny outfit images" because I don't think you know how much less material there is in one of those than in what the women are wearing in the Techweek invite. The Techweek invite images actually show very little skin.

etchalon 12y ago

So, to promote a party, Techweek used images from the same party last year, of actual people who attended the party last year. That they chose to use attractive, well-dressed women, who looked like they were having fun, is somehow offensive. I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this.

danielharan 12y ago
Were they actual attendees, or is that an assumption?
- etchalon 12y ago
  TechWeek claims they were: http://techweek.com/a-note-to-our-community/ http://techweek.com/a-note-to-our-community/ I'm taking them at their word. "The photo in question was taken from a series of photos of event attendees that were posted on our Facebook page in March. These photos were taken at a photo booth featuring top hats, bow-ties, and other fun black-tie related props. It was used with the intent to promote and encourage attendance at the inaugural event here in Chicago." Re-reading it, it might not have been this exact party/event, but it's clear that it's not just some stock photography of pretty women.
- sp332 12y ago
  To promote the upcoming event in Chicago, we’ve used photos of attendees at a photo booth at the inaugural event in Miami in March. http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-controversy-images-of-women-bsi,0,0.story http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-contr...
ronaldx 12y ago
I believe "1st annual" has a specific meaning which you seem to have missed.
- the_hangman 12y ago
  It was from their Miami event from earlier this year; the photos have been on TachWeek's Facebook for a few months.

kirinkalia 12y ago

The Techweek drama aside, what do you think of Sean's post? I admire and applaud his bravery in admitting he hasn't done enough in the past and will do better in the future.

a-t-shirt 12y ago
77.8%. In the United States, 77.8% of homicide victims are male. But no, Sean is having a public anxiety attack because a company chose a photograph of two actual attendees in a photo booth who chose chose to dress slightly more provocatively than his sensibilities allow. Sean isn't being brave. He's sucking up to women in an extremely politically expedient way.
sp332 12y ago
True! It seems slightly hypocritical though. I think Techweek reacted pretty much the same way - accidentally did something offensive and reacted quickly when it was pointed out - but he's not willing to forgive them.

a-t-shirt 12y ago

The #YesAllWomen campaign opened my eyes, too. When three men and three women are murdered, we focus completely on the women. When men are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victim of homicides, violent crime (including violent crime from strangers), we instead choose to have a society-wide struggle session[1] on the plight of western women. Western culture is hypersensitive to women's issues. In particular, hyper-affluent White men seem to derive some carnal pleasure from throwing other men under the bus. As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of men, and as long as Twitter/HN activists mock anyone who points out the compassion disparity ("WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?"), we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

seldo 12y ago
> As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of men ... we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality. I'm unclear on your thesis here: is your position that the reason women are disadvantaged in society in general and tech in particular because we "care more about the plight of women"? Because that seems illogical. But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion. Your account is 6 days old, of course, so I may be just feeding a troll here.
- a-t-shirt 12y ago
  > But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion. For men and women born since the mid-1980s, absolutely. And crime, education, and income statistics support my assertion.
  - seldo 12y ago
    It is possible for it to be simultaneously true that men are more frequently victims of violent crime, perform worse in standardized tests, and earn less than women[1] and also that women are more frequently the victims of sexual assault[2] and other forms of harassment, prevented from taking the careers of their choice[3], and subject to a greater degree of criticism in the media for the same actions[4]. The existence of things that are bad for men does mean that men have things harder than women. The fact that there are things we should fix for men does not mean we can ignore the things that are broken for women. This is not a zero-sum game, and it is not productive to determine who "has it worse". There are things that are bad for women that happen to women, and we should stop those things happening without questioning whether they are "deserving" of doing so. [1] Though I have never seen any stats that back up this last assertion, ever. [2] https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-... [3] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131007151635.ht... [4] http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/03/how-we-criticize-men-vs-how-we-criticize-women/ http://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/03/how-we-criticize...

jakejake 12y ago

I don't find the photo particularly scandalous, but taken in the context of the tech industry issues with sexism, it definitely shows a lack of awareness on the part of the organizers. I would hate to see us become so politically correct that we can't show a picture of people having fun to advertise a party. But, it's not that hard to find stock images of both men and women who are attractive, having fun together and not dressed up like playboy models kissing one another.

ryguytilidie 12y ago

Woah, tons of straw men in here. If you read this and believe that the fact that they chose attractive women is the problem, than you should probably either reread it or stop having opinions about things.

outside1234 12y ago
Ok, I'm confused, if that isn't the problem, then what is?

_deh 12y ago

Leaving the gratuitous sexism to one side briefly - a Black Tie Rave... 'champagne and caviar paired with glowsticks'... I ask you. And from the city that gave the world house music.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

zaqokm 12y ago

Due to recent complaints the black tie ball is now and Amish style. This is to prevent the objectification of women by making them less appealing. Call me ignorant (although I would rather refer to myself as not really focused or caring on the matter), that just because there are 2 good looking woman promoting an event which hopefully should also be fun does not make it objectifying women. Maybe people are just paying to much attention to the small things.