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".
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.
> 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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".