I understand, but in this case "sexism" and "sexual harassment" are kind of used interchangeably by everyone, especially in the article above. And I guess my hang-up is that I've come to view the equivalency of sexual jokes and sexual harassment as a result of people using sexual innuendo or sexually charged words to…

No, she never talked to them at all. She's very open about that fact on her blog.

I'm just gonna ask this and hope it doesn't draw any ire, because I know I'm not the only one who doesn't understand. The jokes were, as far as I've come to understand given the limited details revealed, something to do with "a big dongle", and that one of the jokers "would like to fork [a male presenter's] repo". The…

You know, I thought the title of this article was common sense obvious too. Which is probably why this other Jezebel article made so many people pretty upset

They weren't actually kicked out though. PyCon talked to them and Richards, made it clear it wasn't okay to make those jokes, and then let them stay.

Well good luck on your quest to find a full staff in the tech industry, men or women, who'd never get it in their minds to make a pun on the word "dongle" to a colleague.

If they had, and she reported it, they would probably have been kicked out and banned from the conference. PyCon has a fairly strict code of conduct with regards to sexual harassment these days.

Just an FYI, the lecturer was a man. And the only joke (that I've found so far, details are sparse) that involved him was a comment saying "I'd fork that guy's repo". Sounds sexual, but can very easily mean "I'd like to work on that guy's projects".

I don't know what you'd classify as extensive training or what qualifiers come with being known, but I've never heard of a grandmaster who didn't play massive amounts of chess from a very young age (usually 6-8 years old) with either their parents or a trainer. Chess isn't just a matter of having a knack, it's also…

You see that Amazon book ad at the bottom of the article?

I guess you're right. It's just that if this was a case of micromanagement, they didn't just do broad strokes like "we need housewives and sassy kids and men playing golf", the dialogue itself was just... like a poor Lucille Ball imitation.

It may have been promoting a Korean company but it's not like it was full of Korean actors or that anyone spoke in Korean, or that it was aimed at Korean consumers. Why they'd have Korean directors and script writers to make an American facsimile presentation is almost equally baffling.

While I was watching the presentation it took me a while to start thinking about the gender aspects of it, because the whole thing was just so utterly... bizarre. Like, the host, the jokes, the precocious kids, the stereotypes, the scenarios, everything seemed right out of the 1950s. As if everything was written by…

what in the nine flights of fuck

I hear you. The fact that I'm here, reading and clicking and commenting on articles, even though I feel this way about the quality of the blog, makes me as complicit as anyone. Hard to change a habit I guess :/

I just mean that, even if Jezebel realizes that their readers aren't so dumb and might appreciate even the slightest bit of critical analysis (which this article displays a complete lack of; apparently thinking that looking at a single picture out of context is all the research one could ever need), they don't have…

Treating a person, any person, as a MacGuffin and/or a prize, is a story telling technique. Not everyone in a story can be a main character. But it's the tendency of almost exclusively treating women as plot objects rather than characters that makes that practice sexist, not the act itself.

Whether the audience is dumb or not, they still click the articles. Jezebel doesn't get paid by the contentment of their readers, just their attendance.