> And yet when she shared her experience with other women at the conference, she found that she wasn’t alone—many others had received the same treatment from the Blizzard recruitment booth as well
I would doubt that a company would publicly post this due to liability otherwise
I mean, some don't. But that quote was apparently from a publicly posted (on the company Twitter), redacted letter to Blizzard from the person's employer after Blizzard tried to become a customer.
And when there’s a documented pattern to the point that lawsuits are filed with evidence and testimony, AND the person telling the story has very little to personally gain (and a lot to lose since conservative Twitter tends to send death threats over things like this), you tend to take the one more likely.
Further, if you read the article there is a literal whole company with a business relationship that was cancelled with blizzard over this. I think you really really really should do some soul searching on what makes you have a knee-jerk reaction that they're making it up.
But also, news organizations are cognizant that their credibility takes a hit if they just publish every single accusation regardless of attribution.
The t-shirt she chose to wear to a career event showing a [sexual] double-entendre is not asking for abuse obviously, but demanding some kind of attention. The entire video game business has a [lack of] culture problem. That the Blizzard boys went so far in embarrassing themselves is theirs to own.
Edit: Flagged? I'm sorry. If you read the article, the inappropriate jokes were targeted to her t-shirt reading "Penetration Expert". This is stupid on top of stupid.
Before this devolves, please put yourself in the shoes of a woman wanting to work in the industry and knowing a bunch of drunk men not only think hitting on you is appropriate, but also they’re the people that hold the keys to your hiring role and future promotions. You’d stay the fuck away.
Reading the whole story makes it worse, not better. Telling someone, dressed as WHATEVER inquiring about a job "are you lost" and "are you here with your boyfriend" is just as bad if not worse.
She's an attendee at a security conference wearing a tshirt. They're representatives of a company trying to hire people at that conference.
Behavior like this is extremely common in the security community, and not even just towards women. Unfortunately many people in the industry are essentially socially maligned outcasts and fail to see how inappropriate it is to use this same behavior towards strangers, especially women, at a conference. It’s not a hacker IRC channel with people you’ve known for a decade who appreciate low effort dark humor, it’s sexual harassment.
In aforementioned hacker IRC channel there is probably at least context or knowledge that they're just screwing around with the double meaning of pentesting. I see it pretty commonly with any combination of genders, including m/m anal-related somewhat tasteless jokes.
In this case it was led with something akin to aww are you lost? where is your boyfriend?, which already provides really shitty harassment context. There's also a pretty large difference when you're in a chill groupchat compared to _representing your employer at a conference_
> context or knowledge that they're just screwing around with the double meaning of pentesting.
Can we just like - stop that though? We're not in middle school anymore and it's not particularly funny of a joke.
Statements made to break the ice and provide a more social environment are fine for easing technical discussions - especially when introverts are so common in our field - but there are legions of other topics in the security research field that can yield rich soil for merriment.
The person in question, for reasons unknown to us (perhaps peer pressure), also decided to perpetuate this kind of comedy with clothing that read "When was the last time you were penetrated?" It seems quite unfair to expect to dish out this kind of comedy without taking some of it back.
I am in the industry for 25 years and have participated (and in the vast majority of cases - spoken) at many conferences. I have never seen it happening.
I am an average man and met other average men and women at the conferences and it was like any other meetings: sometimes interesting, lots of chit-chat, lots of boring people etc.
I never saw anyone harass others - my experience is in Europe, the US and a bunch of conferences in Asia.
I have also regrettably not witnessed the executive orgies everyone talks about, despite having been at all the right after parties.
This DOES NOT mean that it does not exist - the case in the article is an example of assholes who statistically exist in all populations who should have been told to fuck off by someone around. And shove their sense of humor in a dark place of their body.
I am just kindly challenging the extremely common part.
From your side, you are right, and hearing it spoken of when you do not see it could make a person question the narrative.
Just to say though, it seems probable to me that 99% of twenty-something women in the industry will have a misogynistic experience to recount. Perspective is relative.
I do not question the narrative, I hope I made it clear in my comment.
What I question is how common it is in the security world (compared, say, to the filmmaking industry, or rugby, or mining). Being for a variety of reasons quite sensitive to this topic, I just said that I have not witnessed it so far.
I think these sorts of groups tend to pretty naturally self-censor and filter when not dealing with victims. If we were at a conference and you were talking about some intrusion and described it as a "piercing attack" - I might crack a joke about it being a shame you didn't have any huscarls around on defense... that joke would probably not land that well so I'd just shift my communication to a different domain to suit the audience. I'd imagine clumps of folks that enjoy bawdy jokes will occasionally test the waters with a light one on what they view as their peers (i.e. men) and if they get a poor response they'll shift tactics - only if you feed into their reference will they open up and start being horrible around you.
The older I get, the more I think “yeah, so?” This is the sort of behavior that 10M years of sexual reproduction has delivered. Males of a certain age range tend to have testosterone and want to hump everything that is vaguely feminine.
Insisting that we act completely unnaturally seems futile and counterproductive. Castigating based on a natural response seems unfair.
For millions of years the males would kill other males in competing tribes for resources. Luckily we have moved past that and are able to use our higher order brain functions to suppress that desire in most cases, so we can live in a peaceful civilization.
The desire to fight and human sexuality are a bit different in this respect. You can imagine and want to live In a society free of violence but sexuality is with us for the foreseeable future.
It is also a lot more subjective and difficult set standards around sexual behavior while it is easy to define violence and say what behaviors have no place in the workplace.
Sexual advances are more tricky because the same exact behavior may receive a positive or negative reception.
Do you have children? Do you teach them that this behaviour is OK? What about beating up random people? We can also make some argument that those also came about for some evolutionary reason and testoron...
I teach my kids to not be jerks. Beating up random people makes you a jerk. Persistent or agressive sexually harassment makes you a jerk. Random sexual banter doesn't make you a jerk.
Perhaps it's time for the security industry to pick more appropriate word for "penetration" like much of the rest of the tech world did for various other outdated offensive keywords.
Your username contains "foobar", which comes from the military acronym "FUBAR", which stands for "fucked up beyond all recognition". Should the tech world move away from foobar as well?
"Penetration" is not as offensive as "kill". Would you submit the s/SIGKILL/SIGNINE patch to any project?
On the topic of foobar - CS has pretty much wholly converted the usage away from FUBAR - "foo" and "bar" are now commonly used variable names that have a colorful history but aren't frequently associated with errors - they're more commonly associated with anonymous variables.
I don't know about "Penetration" vs "kill" - I would agree that kill is objectively more offensive, but as an industry we've got an issue with sexual harassment not violence - so I don't know if kill really applies in it's offensive meaning here.
All I know is that the jokes around "Penetration" need to die. In this particular scenario that specific "Do you like being penetrated line" was practically set up as a response to the shirt - it's a bad shirt to wear to a professional event. If we can just tone down the marketing I think it'll continue to die off as decorum is normalized.
"I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
> On the topic of foobar - CS has pretty much wholly converted the usage away from FUBAR - "foo" and "bar" are now commonly used variable names that have a colorful history but aren't frequently associated with errors - they're more commonly associated with anonymous variables.
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I don't think that it is problematic that foobar implies "fucked up beyond recognition". That is not an offensive phrase. It's a little uncouth, but not offensive on its own.
And penetration is not an offensive concept! It's what we call one thing going into another thing. Sex also involves this, I am told. Even killing isn't inherently offensive. We kill germs and mosquitoes (and mysqld) frequently and intentionally.
What really needs to happen is the accurate placement of blame. Like you say, the penetration jokes need to die (for the same reason the Uranus jokes needed to die in 2620). The penetration jokes directed at applicants by recruiters really need to die. But the use of the word "penetration" in security is not at fault, it's just an accurate term.
While we're at it, we should ban the Unix utilities "finger", "strip", and "touch" because they have sexual connotations and rename "git" because it's an insult in British English.
If you forgot the /s remember sarcasm doesn't transmit well over the internet, and by not clearly indicating it, you encourage or legitimize the people your sarcasm is aimed at.
Secondly, I find it oh so funny that people barge into a community and demand the language change because it's offensive to them, yet claim that they are being the tolerant ones.
> If you forgot the /s remember sarcasm doesn't transmit well over the internet, and by not clearly indicating it, you encourage or legitimize the people your sarcasm is aimed at.
I didn't forget the /s. I declined to use it. There's a point at which a suggestion is so absurd a reasonable person is bound to interpret it as ironic. If they don't see the irony that's unfortunate, and 1) I wasn't talking to them and 2) their foolishness is only amplified if they feel legitimized.
As I've said elsewhere, the burden is on Blizzard's recruiter to maintain a level of conduct that represents Blizzard appropriately. What's on the shirt is irrelevant.
I think it's more of a HN culture that discourages reddit like posts which add nothing to the conversation (besides the joke)
> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.
The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
The chorus of people rushing to make the same old jokes over and over again really degrades the discussion on reddit and I'm glad to see it is much less welcome on Hn.
"Keep me up till five because all your stars are out, and for no other reason"
There is only so much screen space avaliable. I want it all to be signal. The sole reason I post under my own name is that I found I was just posting on forums without adding anything to the discussion. I got pissed off at my myself and decided to put all my posts under my own name. Now every time I post I ask am I adding anything of value?
If you go through my post history I'm sad to say you'll find instances where I didn't add anything of value. I feel bad about that, but I reflect on my failure and try again.
Not to condone this behavior, but I think it's absolutely worth noting that she was wearing a shirt that said "Penetration Expert" on the front (which the article mentions) which is reasonably mild. But the shirt also says on the back, if you follow the link, "When was the Last Time you were PENETRATED..." [capitalization sic] (which the article conveniently leaves out).
I've gotta say, that is way more sexual of a joke than I'd personally be comfortable wearing in a business casual environment, and I can't help but feel that if you wear that you're really opening yourself up to people teasing you with "Oh yeah, when was the last time you were penetrated?". There's a big difference between "she was asking for it because of her clothes" - bad argument - and "she chose to wear a shirt with an overtly sexual joke on it and people repeated the joke to her".
> One of the Blizzard employees first asked if she was lost, another one asked if she was at the conference with her boyfriend, and another one asked if she even knew what pentesting was.
> "One of my C-suite executives saw that you had been added to our CRM database, and shared a very troubling and upsetting story with me:
> Back in 2015 at the Black Hat USA security conference in Las Vegas Blizzard had a recruitment booth in the “Career Zone” section of the vendor area. As the name implies, the purpose of the Career Zone is to connect hackers seeking jobs with companies seeking to employ them. My executive (whom I should clarify was not employed with us at the time, but rather was employed as a senior vulnerability researcher at large security consulting firm) approached the Blizzard booth to inquire about open positions; however instead of discussing potential job opportunities with her, the Blizzard recruiters ridiculed her for being a woman. They asked her if she was lost; if her boyfriend brought her to the conference; if she even knew what the conference was about; if she knew was penetration testing was, and how often she got penetrated; and a slew of other extremely inappropriate and wholly unprofessional questions.”
Or just believe the women in the face of credible evidence. The lengths many HN commenters will go to to cast FUD upon any accusation of sexism in the industry is a pretty clear indicator of how much sexism is in the industry.
> The lengths many HN commenters will go to to cast FUD upon any accusation of sexism in the industry is a pretty clear indicator of how much sexism is in the industry.
Idk, seems like that is well balanced by the white-knights and virtue signalers quick to prop up any bias confirming story.
"Or just believe the women in the face of credible evidence."
? But we just found that we can't do that.
The top commenter has basically turned the story upside down, with the fairly relevant information (i.e. evidence) that Ms. Mitchell was wearing a t-shirt with overtly sexual language - to which the Blizzard dorks merely responded directly to.
Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism.
This information was not fully reported in the story and it materially changes the situation.
The story was presented as: "Woman Faced Sexual Harassment"
... but really it's something much more nuanced: "Woman Extolling Sexual Language, Is Responded To In Those Same Terms, Interprets Actions as Harassing"
The statements on her t-shirt, if correct (i.e. both sides) are clearly 'sexually charged language' that, if worn in any professional context, especially by a man, would have them immediately sidelined. Shamed, at minimum.
So in this case, it's a good thing that we 'didn't believe the story' because it turned out to be something more complicated.
I'm always immediately sympathetic to people in these scenarios ... but invariably I learn more, and that there is always considerably more nuance than reported, to the point wherein the authors of the story are effectively misrepresenting reality, and I become much less likely to accept anything reported just 'at face value' - which is frankly not good for 'the movement'.
I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes.
Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"?
> Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism.
This is wildly charitable to blizzard guys. She's wearing a punny tshirt and asking about a job. They're responding by asking how often she's been penetrated, and whether she knows literally anything about csec. She isn't fucking hitting on them at a bar, and they're there as professionals looking to fucking hire people.
I don't think this really adds nuance. It attempts to excuse unprofessional (maybe can be interpreted as questionably okay in this context) and sexist (not okay, fucking period) actions. They're getting paid by Blizzard to be there. You don't say shit like that and expect to have a job the next day, regardless of the context.
> I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes.
Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters makes people excuse unacceptable, unprofessional and downright wrong language allows otherwise "open" people to say "well I guess we'll never know." which preserves the status quo.
"Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"?"
A person, whatever they are wearing, is not overly engaging in sexualized interaction.
But if someone writes something overtly sexual on their t-shirt, they are engaging in a communication.
That someone responded to the t-shirt shouldn't be surprising, even if it's unprofessional.
---
"I don't think it adds nuance"
It adds nuance because the men, engaging in discussion about 'penetration' without incitement, is something clearly different then the men commenting on the pun that is on another person's shirt.
---
"Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters "
It's not muddying the waters if you accept that the woman initiated a level of discourse by her own accord.
Consider what would happen if one of your male co-workers wore a t-shirt with an overtly crude, sexual double-etendre about 'penetration' to the office?
"Have you ever been PENETRATED? (wink wink!)"
Surely you'd be outraged that this would be exactly the kind of 'frat boy' culture you're condemning.
I'm certain that I would be told to 'change shirts' immediately, at least at my office.
So how do we then contemplate that a women, who wears such a is not directly engaging in this bad behaviour?
If you wear a t-shirt that says: "Suck My Banana!" to the office, and someone says to you "Ok, I'll Suck Your Banana!" - then who is really 'at fault' of being crude and sexist?
I don't think that Banana has much of a legitimate claim.
I thought that was a pretty big part of what we all learned during the #metoo movement - the incentives to lie are pretty weak for victims since they end up facing waves of harassment over even legitimate claims.
Considering Blizzard is currently being sued by the state of California for exactly the same discriminatory behavior it's same to assume that grain of salt has long since dissolved into this soup of illegal bullshit that Blizzard is being sued for.
This incident is such a baffling combination of the historically “loose” norms of both the security and gaming industries. I have no idea how to unpack all the layers here. I’m sure it would make me acutely uncomfortable to talk to someone (of any gender) wearing that shirt in a professional context.
Professionally, yes, practically, and probably legally, no.
The applicant has every responsibility to maintain a degree of professionalism.
If they entered into a conversation with overtly 'cheeky' and sexual context, then they've set the tone themselves.
More importantly - the victim here could be interpreted as the instigator of sexual harassment.
Imagine a man, wearing a T-Shirt at the office, that said 'When Was The Last Time You Were PENETRATED?' - he would be taken aside and accused of sexual assault or unwarranted behaviour, right on the spot, no conversation needed.
> Professionally, yes, practically, and probably legally, no.
The word professionally or professionalism are weasel words that don't hold up to scrutiny. Competence is necessary by every definition I found, so how, exactly, are you going to determine competence? By my measure everyone in management at Blizzard should be immediately terminated for lacking professionalism.
> The applicant has every responsibility to maintain a degree of professionalism.
That presumes everyone agrees to the same standard of professionalism, which isn't true, not even slightly.
> If they entered into a conversation with overtly 'cheeky' and sexual context, then they've set the tone themselves.
Why are you blaming the victim?
> More importantly - the victim here could be interpreted as the instigator of sexual harassment.
If reading words on a shirt instigates someone else to behave like that, then they should have their mental state evaluated.
> Imagine a man, wearing a T-Shirt at the office, that said 'When Was The Last Time You Were PENETRATED?' - he would be taken aside and accused of sexual assault or unwarranted behaviour, right on the spot, no conversation needed.
I've done exactly what you're describing several times at a few different organizations of various sizes. I think you're going to be very surprised how Twitter and corporate media aren't a proxy for real life.
I don't think this is a fair argument. Sure, the shirt probably isn't appropriate for a business casual environment, but that doesn't change the fact that this behaviour is sexual harassment: made worse by the fact that the recruiters are acting from a position of power.
It's also worth pointing out that these events occurred at Black Hat, in Las Vegas: what passes as acceptable business attire there is not the same as what would fly in an office, and I guarantee there were plenty of people wearing far more risqué shirts without facing any harassment.
It's easy to try to pin some responsibility on the woman here, but that ignores the fact that this sort of language and culture is extremely common at Black Hat and DEFCON, and a shirt like she was wearing would not have been out of place at the conference. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if she won the shirt at the conference.
From the year before, here [0] is a sign from the vendor area at Black Hat, featuring an underwear clad model with the caption: "You know you're not the first... but do you really care?"
Similarly, to this day, DEFCON, held one week after Black Hat, and likely the largest security conference in the world, still holds a "Hacker Jeopardy" competition, featuring strippers who remove their clothing as contestants answer questions correctly.
I only say all of this because I think a lot of context is being lost in this article, by people who haven't been to these conferences: the women's shirt wouldn't have been what singled her out here, her gender was, and for the recruiters to harass her for that is unacceptable.
Ms. Mitchell, by wearing the t-shirt with overtly sexual language, was participating and engendering the ostensible 'sexualized culture' herself, and to absolve her of complicity in her own actions is maybe actually the sexist part.
If a man wore that shirt, we would declare it 'demeaning and sexist' I think, without doubt.
I fully agree, it's all too much, people should be more professional, and the Blizzard guys should not have referenced it at all.
You're 3rd paragraph doesn't add up. If she is wearing the 'dirty t-shirt' ... then she is not a 'victim' to what she herself is perpetuating, unless you think this person is unintelligent? I don't understand.
I don't think this is the story we are looking for, and I don't think legal action is warrant against people referring to someone by comments on their own t-shirt, and it's also upsetting that this nuanced information is not in the article.
'Sexism' is real, it happens, and it's important, and so we can't just flail around with bad information and journalism trying to push narratives. Facts matter and if people want to 'move the needle' it would behove us all to get the story straight.
When I explain I worked as a penetration tester and provided hacking demonstrations, for some reason, both male and female colleagues have responded with naughty innuendo.
There is something to do with the word penetration that makes people feel as though they MUST comment sexually on it.
If you see anyone trying to make a joke about penetration testing and penetration, stay well the fuck away and tell everyone you know to stay well the fuck away.
Not only are they being inappropriate by trying it with people at a security event, they're probably an idiot for ever thinking it was funny.
But aside from that, we probably should retire "penetration tester" as a job title because dipshits can't resist being dipshits and there's enough barriers for women in security as it is.
> "One of them asked me when was the last time I was personally penetrated, if I liked being penetrated, and how often I got penetrated," Mitchell told Waypoint. "I was furious and felt humiliated so I took the free swag and left."
84 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 161 ms ] threadI would doubt that a company would publicly post this due to liability otherwise
https://reason.com/2018/10/17/seneca-valley-mean-girls-false...
Further, if you read the article there is a literal whole company with a business relationship that was cancelled with blizzard over this. I think you really really really should do some soul searching on what makes you have a knee-jerk reaction that they're making it up.
But also, news organizations are cognizant that their credibility takes a hit if they just publish every single accusation regardless of attribution.
Edit: Flagged? I'm sorry. If you read the article, the inappropriate jokes were targeted to her t-shirt reading "Penetration Expert". This is stupid on top of stupid.
>"One of them asked me when was the last time I was personally penetrated, if I liked being penetrated, and how often I got penetrated,"
Don't get me wrong, it's terrible.
She's an attendee at a security conference wearing a tshirt. They're representatives of a company trying to hire people at that conference.
In this case it was led with something akin to aww are you lost? where is your boyfriend?, which already provides really shitty harassment context. There's also a pretty large difference when you're in a chill groupchat compared to _representing your employer at a conference_
Can we just like - stop that though? We're not in middle school anymore and it's not particularly funny of a joke.
Statements made to break the ice and provide a more social environment are fine for easing technical discussions - especially when introverts are so common in our field - but there are legions of other topics in the security research field that can yield rich soil for merriment.
I am in the industry for 25 years and have participated (and in the vast majority of cases - spoken) at many conferences. I have never seen it happening.
I am an average man and met other average men and women at the conferences and it was like any other meetings: sometimes interesting, lots of chit-chat, lots of boring people etc.
I never saw anyone harass others - my experience is in Europe, the US and a bunch of conferences in Asia.
I have also regrettably not witnessed the executive orgies everyone talks about, despite having been at all the right after parties.
This DOES NOT mean that it does not exist - the case in the article is an example of assholes who statistically exist in all populations who should have been told to fuck off by someone around. And shove their sense of humor in a dark place of their body.
I am just kindly challenging the extremely common part.
Just to say though, it seems probable to me that 99% of twenty-something women in the industry will have a misogynistic experience to recount. Perspective is relative.
What I question is how common it is in the security world (compared, say, to the filmmaking industry, or rugby, or mining). Being for a variety of reasons quite sensitive to this topic, I just said that I have not witnessed it so far.
Insisting that we act completely unnaturally seems futile and counterproductive. Castigating based on a natural response seems unfair.
That's how we have civilization...
It is also a lot more subjective and difficult set standards around sexual behavior while it is easy to define violence and say what behaviors have no place in the workplace.
Sexual advances are more tricky because the same exact behavior may receive a positive or negative reception.
I don't even WANT to have that conversation with a random person...
What is with these people?
Gotta be honest I'd even be a little uncomfortable about the shirt... the whole situation is wonky.
While I don’t condone this behavior, the back of the shirt says “When was the last time you were penetrated…”
"Penetration" is not as offensive as "kill". Would you submit the s/SIGKILL/SIGNINE patch to any project?
Still unfortunate. But understandable.
I don't know about "Penetration" vs "kill" - I would agree that kill is objectively more offensive, but as an industry we've got an issue with sexual harassment not violence - so I don't know if kill really applies in it's offensive meaning here.
All I know is that the jokes around "Penetration" need to die. In this particular scenario that specific "Do you like being penetrated line" was practically set up as a response to the shirt - it's a bad shirt to wear to a professional event. If we can just tone down the marketing I think it'll continue to die off as decorum is normalized.
"I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I don't think that it is problematic that foobar implies "fucked up beyond recognition". That is not an offensive phrase. It's a little uncouth, but not offensive on its own.
And penetration is not an offensive concept! It's what we call one thing going into another thing. Sex also involves this, I am told. Even killing isn't inherently offensive. We kill germs and mosquitoes (and mysqld) frequently and intentionally.
What really needs to happen is the accurate placement of blame. Like you say, the penetration jokes need to die (for the same reason the Uranus jokes needed to die in 2620). The penetration jokes directed at applicants by recruiters really need to die. But the use of the word "penetration" in security is not at fault, it's just an accurate term.
Secondly, I find it oh so funny that people barge into a community and demand the language change because it's offensive to them, yet claim that they are being the tolerant ones.
I didn't forget the /s. I declined to use it. There's a point at which a suggestion is so absurd a reasonable person is bound to interpret it as ironic. If they don't see the irony that's unfortunate, and 1) I wasn't talking to them and 2) their foolishness is only amplified if they feel legitimized.
EDIT yeah we live in a post-joke world
> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.
The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
"Keep me up till five because all your stars are out, and for no other reason"
There is only so much screen space avaliable. I want it all to be signal. The sole reason I post under my own name is that I found I was just posting on forums without adding anything to the discussion. I got pissed off at my myself and decided to put all my posts under my own name. Now every time I post I ask am I adding anything of value?
If you go through my post history I'm sad to say you'll find instances where I didn't add anything of value. I feel bad about that, but I reflect on my failure and try again.
I've gotta say, that is way more sexual of a joke than I'd personally be comfortable wearing in a business casual environment, and I can't help but feel that if you wear that you're really opening yourself up to people teasing you with "Oh yeah, when was the last time you were penetrated?". There's a big difference between "she was asking for it because of her clothes" - bad argument - and "she chose to wear a shirt with an overtly sexual joke on it and people repeated the joke to her".
Was that on the shirt too?
The incentives to misrepresent the truth and lie/exaggerate/downplay are there for every party involved.
> Back in 2015 at the Black Hat USA security conference in Las Vegas Blizzard had a recruitment booth in the “Career Zone” section of the vendor area. As the name implies, the purpose of the Career Zone is to connect hackers seeking jobs with companies seeking to employ them. My executive (whom I should clarify was not employed with us at the time, but rather was employed as a senior vulnerability researcher at large security consulting firm) approached the Blizzard booth to inquire about open positions; however instead of discussing potential job opportunities with her, the Blizzard recruiters ridiculed her for being a woman. They asked her if she was lost; if her boyfriend brought her to the conference; if she even knew what the conference was about; if she knew was penetration testing was, and how often she got penetrated; and a slew of other extremely inappropriate and wholly unprofessional questions.”
Or just believe the women in the face of credible evidence. The lengths many HN commenters will go to to cast FUD upon any accusation of sexism in the industry is a pretty clear indicator of how much sexism is in the industry.
Idk, seems like that is well balanced by the white-knights and virtue signalers quick to prop up any bias confirming story.
? But we just found that we can't do that.
The top commenter has basically turned the story upside down, with the fairly relevant information (i.e. evidence) that Ms. Mitchell was wearing a t-shirt with overtly sexual language - to which the Blizzard dorks merely responded directly to.
Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism.
This information was not fully reported in the story and it materially changes the situation.
The story was presented as: "Woman Faced Sexual Harassment"
... but really it's something much more nuanced: "Woman Extolling Sexual Language, Is Responded To In Those Same Terms, Interprets Actions as Harassing"
The statements on her t-shirt, if correct (i.e. both sides) are clearly 'sexually charged language' that, if worn in any professional context, especially by a man, would have them immediately sidelined. Shamed, at minimum.
So in this case, it's a good thing that we 'didn't believe the story' because it turned out to be something more complicated.
I'm always immediately sympathetic to people in these scenarios ... but invariably I learn more, and that there is always considerably more nuance than reported, to the point wherein the authors of the story are effectively misrepresenting reality, and I become much less likely to accept anything reported just 'at face value' - which is frankly not good for 'the movement'.
I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes.
> Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism.
This is wildly charitable to blizzard guys. She's wearing a punny tshirt and asking about a job. They're responding by asking how often she's been penetrated, and whether she knows literally anything about csec. She isn't fucking hitting on them at a bar, and they're there as professionals looking to fucking hire people.
I don't think this really adds nuance. It attempts to excuse unprofessional (maybe can be interpreted as questionably okay in this context) and sexist (not okay, fucking period) actions. They're getting paid by Blizzard to be there. You don't say shit like that and expect to have a job the next day, regardless of the context.
> I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes.
Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters makes people excuse unacceptable, unprofessional and downright wrong language allows otherwise "open" people to say "well I guess we'll never know." which preserves the status quo.
I see their argument being more like she initiated the tone of the interaction by her choice of wording on her clothing?
A person, whatever they are wearing, is not overly engaging in sexualized interaction.
But if someone writes something overtly sexual on their t-shirt, they are engaging in a communication.
That someone responded to the t-shirt shouldn't be surprising, even if it's unprofessional.
---
"I don't think it adds nuance"
It adds nuance because the men, engaging in discussion about 'penetration' without incitement, is something clearly different then the men commenting on the pun that is on another person's shirt.
---
"Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters "
It's not muddying the waters if you accept that the woman initiated a level of discourse by her own accord.
Consider what would happen if one of your male co-workers wore a t-shirt with an overtly crude, sexual double-etendre about 'penetration' to the office?
"Have you ever been PENETRATED? (wink wink!)"
Surely you'd be outraged that this would be exactly the kind of 'frat boy' culture you're condemning.
I'm certain that I would be told to 'change shirts' immediately, at least at my office.
So how do we then contemplate that a women, who wears such a is not directly engaging in this bad behaviour?
If you wear a t-shirt that says: "Suck My Banana!" to the office, and someone says to you "Ok, I'll Suck Your Banana!" - then who is really 'at fault' of being crude and sexist?
I don't think that Banana has much of a legitimate claim.
The applicant has every responsibility to maintain a degree of professionalism.
If they entered into a conversation with overtly 'cheeky' and sexual context, then they've set the tone themselves.
More importantly - the victim here could be interpreted as the instigator of sexual harassment.
Imagine a man, wearing a T-Shirt at the office, that said 'When Was The Last Time You Were PENETRATED?' - he would be taken aside and accused of sexual assault or unwarranted behaviour, right on the spot, no conversation needed.
The word professionally or professionalism are weasel words that don't hold up to scrutiny. Competence is necessary by every definition I found, so how, exactly, are you going to determine competence? By my measure everyone in management at Blizzard should be immediately terminated for lacking professionalism.
> The applicant has every responsibility to maintain a degree of professionalism.
That presumes everyone agrees to the same standard of professionalism, which isn't true, not even slightly.
> If they entered into a conversation with overtly 'cheeky' and sexual context, then they've set the tone themselves.
Why are you blaming the victim?
> More importantly - the victim here could be interpreted as the instigator of sexual harassment.
If reading words on a shirt instigates someone else to behave like that, then they should have their mental state evaluated.
> Imagine a man, wearing a T-Shirt at the office, that said 'When Was The Last Time You Were PENETRATED?' - he would be taken aside and accused of sexual assault or unwarranted behaviour, right on the spot, no conversation needed.
I've done exactly what you're describing several times at a few different organizations of various sizes. I think you're going to be very surprised how Twitter and corporate media aren't a proxy for real life.
It's also worth pointing out that these events occurred at Black Hat, in Las Vegas: what passes as acceptable business attire there is not the same as what would fly in an office, and I guarantee there were plenty of people wearing far more risqué shirts without facing any harassment.
It's easy to try to pin some responsibility on the woman here, but that ignores the fact that this sort of language and culture is extremely common at Black Hat and DEFCON, and a shirt like she was wearing would not have been out of place at the conference. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if she won the shirt at the conference.
From the year before, here [0] is a sign from the vendor area at Black Hat, featuring an underwear clad model with the caption: "You know you're not the first... but do you really care?"
Similarly, to this day, DEFCON, held one week after Black Hat, and likely the largest security conference in the world, still holds a "Hacker Jeopardy" competition, featuring strippers who remove their clothing as contestants answer questions correctly.
I only say all of this because I think a lot of context is being lost in this article, by people who haven't been to these conferences: the women's shirt wouldn't have been what singled her out here, her gender was, and for the recruiters to harass her for that is unacceptable.
[0] https://twitter.com/secitup/status/497140864708116481
If a man wore that shirt, we would declare it 'demeaning and sexist' I think, without doubt.
I fully agree, it's all too much, people should be more professional, and the Blizzard guys should not have referenced it at all.
You're 3rd paragraph doesn't add up. If she is wearing the 'dirty t-shirt' ... then she is not a 'victim' to what she herself is perpetuating, unless you think this person is unintelligent? I don't understand.
I don't think this is the story we are looking for, and I don't think legal action is warrant against people referring to someone by comments on their own t-shirt, and it's also upsetting that this nuanced information is not in the article.
'Sexism' is real, it happens, and it's important, and so we can't just flail around with bad information and journalism trying to push narratives. Facts matter and if people want to 'move the needle' it would behove us all to get the story straight.
Yeah, that's...not a good look.
But I agree, it doesn't excuse the behavior of the Blizzard employees. ESH.
i suppose maybe that might have been funny in junior high school or something. but, seriously?
There is something to do with the word penetration that makes people feel as though they MUST comment sexually on it.
Not only are they being inappropriate by trying it with people at a security event, they're probably an idiot for ever thinking it was funny.
But aside from that, we probably should retire "penetration tester" as a job title because dipshits can't resist being dipshits and there's enough barriers for women in security as it is.
no wonder people are leaving WoW and their recent games were underperforming (Warcraft 3 Reforged for example)
Took the free swag and left?!