Technology

In that article a female advocate for women's rights describes how she sat back and did nothing to name and shame inappropriate behavior. She talks about how it's men's collective problem to solve her issues for her, and about how speaking up for herself isn't her responsibility.

She's right that she shouldn't have to put up with it, but what is anybody supposed to do when nobody wants to point it out when it happens? Suffragettes did not get their needs met by asking their husbands to do it for them. She needs to name the people who do immoral things, not sit around and hope it gets better by asking politely. Get angry, get mad, but don't ask nicely for HR to solve your problem when we know damn well who HR really protects.

Individuals are solely responsible for their actions. If someone of the same sex, country or whatever does something wrong, it is not the duty of those who share an identity trait to take responsibility.

Try saying "it is unacceptable that blacks do nothing when other blacks commit crimes, they are also the problem and we must act against them". It is discriminatory and disgusting, this article is hate speech.
It is particularly ridiculous that she acts as if she is part of the solution, encouraging others to "join in," when she admits to doing the very thing she criticizes.

Combating sexism is a very serious matter that requires all of us to work together, but there are always people willing to double down on the sexist bet.

Peer pressure is useful in tempering these behaviors, at least insomuch as people fear getting caught and called out for their actions. The ones who most need this are probably the least likely to actually regard their female colleagues as peers, so hopefully there will be more effort from men like this speaking out in the future as well.

A lot of nuance and empathy in this piece, it's worth a close read.

As women, we didn't feel we should have to defend ourselves against such a ridiculous statement, we shouldn't need an uncomfortable public confrontation; but why did none of the men say anything? This is where it got interesting. They felt they didn't want to speak on our behalf, didn't want to be perceived as jumping in and taking our voices. We were surprised, we felt they didn't have our backs and didn't see it as an issue. They felt confused as to how to act.

I've had similar experiences on both ends of that. Confrontation is wearying so usually I just do an internal eye-roll and move on. But at other times I've felt something ought to be said, but thought I lacked the expertise or lived experience to make a convincing case.

One attendee raised the issue of diversity and that his organisation, which developed first-person shooters, 'didn't hire women because women don't play first-person shooters'.

There was a collective intake of breath, then that moment that most women in the industry are familiar with: the meerkat moment where we all look at each other to see who is going to speak up. We all heard very clearly what had been said, as did all the men in the room. No one challenged his statement. A few of us caught up afterwards. We were all keen to understand why nobody challenged his obviously ridiculous sexist statement.

As women, we didn't feel we should have to defend ourselves against such a ridiculous statement, we shouldn't need an uncomfortable public confrontation; but why did none of the men say anything? This is where it got interesting. They felt they didn't want to speak on our behalf, didn't want to be perceived as jumping in and taking our voices. We were surprised, we felt they didn't have our backs and didn't see it as an issue. They felt confused as to how to act.

We agreed that in the future they should use their voices to challenge the statement but to talk on their own behalf, they could have said that they didn't believe the statement, they could say they felt that games players aren't about gender boundaries, that they know great FPS female designers, that we should hire the best people for a job not just define that on gender.

We were grateful they didn't speak on our behalf, but they have voices to speak on their own behalf; to be with us and call out bad behaviour.

Sorry. I felt that entire section needed to be quoted for context. I've bolded and italicized the two bits that caused me to eyeroll.

Okay. so. that "Meerkat moment". That was the Bystander Effect kicking in. you can see it a lot in things like medical emergencies. when a crowd sees somebody collapsing, more than three or four people, and it's extremely likely they're all going to be staring at each other waiting for somebody- anybody- to take charge and call 911.

same thing happened here. they were all bystanders, waiting for somebody- anybody to say something.

Of course, we all like to think we're better than that. And if it were a one on one, or just a few people, in on that conversation, you can bet that most people are better than that. Well, maybe. Sexism is unfortunately super common. there are reasons not to say anything at all, but it would have been a more conscious choice not to.

in crowds, we're pretty freaking dumb, to be honest.

Anyhow... you see the milquetoast answers about why they didn't speak up. the women got excused because- and justifiably so- they're women and they don't need to respond (and lets be honest, confrontation can be dangerous.). the men in the after-group couldn't really call bullshit on that, mostly because it's not.

Now, for the guys... I guarantee you that the concerns about being accused of white knighting is equally justifiable. I mean, look at what the author goes on to say: "they should use their voices to challenge the statement but to talk on their own behalf"... well, is it really on the men's own behalf? Lets rewind a little: "We were surprised, we felt they didn't have our backs and didn't see it as an issue." So clearly, not speaking up, "even on their own behalf"

the author (and maybe the others in the group) definitely wanted a white knight. but not the shining armor. It's not that the men felt confused about what to do- everybody knew what the right thing was. Nobody did it (see bystander effect) but they all knew. It was that the men decided to not do it for the exact same reason the women did: to avoid unnecessary and pointless conflict. Because chances are very solid that somebody in the room would accuse them of being a white knight and chewing them out for it.

The reality is, even if the author- or even a relatively small group- set guidelines for getting involved, that only applies to them. Everyone else have different expectations and needs. and it's almost impossible for men to know when it's appropriate. Unless some guy is actively trying to slip a roofie or something. that's pretty obvious.

The only person whose not justified in remaining silent was who ever was moderating the discussion... whoever that was, needs to not do it again.