back to article Docker hired private detectives to pursue woman engineer's rape, death threat trolls

Container software biz Docker hired private investigators to track down trolls after one of its popular engineers was harassed and bullied for being a woman. Jessie Frazelle, who was sent death and rape threats, last month quit the San Francisco-based upstart to work at Mesosphere. As word of her departure spread, Docker …

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Andy 73 Silver badge

    Utterly unacceptable

    It is quite simply unacceptable to behave in this manner, hiding behind anonymity is beyond pathetic.

    What part of our education system fails to teach basic social skills?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utterly unacceptable

      British one. For starters.

      I am having to (thankfully not literally) beat out what is seeded into junior's brain and vocabulary on a daily basis in a UK school. The really scary part is that I usually fail during term times, but thankfully manage to retake any lost ground during the holidays.

      Some of what I see is a weird and unexpected result of political correctness and equality gone mad. Our generation still had some level of "gentlemanly behavior" drilled down into our heads at home and at school. As a result certain ideas were off-limits day one and stayed this way as we grew up. That is presently considered to be "wrong" and "sexist" leaving a huge moral void instead. There has been no attempt to fill this void with anything so the end-result can be characterized by one word: "feral".

      1. RIBrsiq

        Re: Utterly unacceptable

        "Gentlemanly behavior"...?

        I know you mean well, but what does a "women need Handling with Care" mentality have to do with being decent to fellow human beings? Are rape and murder threats OK if directed against macho men...?

      2. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Utterly unacceptable

        Some of what I see is a weird and unexpected result of political correctness and equality gone mad. Our generation still had some level of "gentlemanly behavior" drilled down into our heads at home and at school. As a result certain ideas were off-limits day one and stayed this way as we grew up. That is presently considered to be "wrong" and "sexist" leaving a huge moral void instead.

        This is utter bilge. You're saying that being taught to treat all people equally decently (which you characterise as "politically correct and equality gone mad" -- a red flag phrase if ever there was one) is responsible for some men issuing rape threats and death threats to high-profile women because those men are no longer being told to put women on a pedestal and treat them as the weaker sex, incapable of doing everything for themselves. Treating people equally decently. Treating people equally decently. How can that possibly translate to a "huge moral void" to be filled with threats and abuse?

        This is more of an insight into your thinking than an insight into the problems covered by the article.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Utterly unacceptable

          Treating people equally decently. How can that possibly translate to a "huge moral void" to be filled with threats and abuse?

          Err... you are thinking of "gentlemanly behavior" as a ruleset directly purely "towards women" and treating them as "weaker sex". Which is exactly my point - position like yours is political correctness gone mad exemplified.

          I suggest you look up ALL rules of gentlemanly behavior as you clearly do not know them. These include integrity, and protecting people who are WEAKER and VULNERABLE than you regardless of their sexual orientation as well many other things. The "weaker sex", "women and children first", etc are merely one (of many) applications of these rules. Where they apply. We (thankfully) live in a day and age when some of them are do not apply. The key word is SOME.

          By the way, based on your reaction, quite clearly, your parents did not explain the rules to you in full. So any expectation that you will explain them to your offspring is not founded in reality. No surprise that they will go feral then.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: Utterly unacceptable

            I have to say I sort of get where you are coming from, I'm not sure if the idea of saying "I wish you get raped" to a woman is so abhorrent I can't see myself saying it even in the heat of the moment. Part of me wonders if it's because you know old concepts of chivalry etc.

            I am also thinking of most of the females I have known in my life, and pretty sure if I said anything like that as an insult to any of them they would probably slap me so hard my teeth would rattle, and every friend would call me out on it.*

            I dunno if that's chivalry, civilisation or being brought up properly. But there's definetly an element of society that could do with being taught some ff'ing manners.

            *I suspect this is what would happen to half these trolls as well if they actually had the balls to say this stuff in real life.

            1. Triggerfish

              Re: Utterly unacceptable @Myself

              I'm not sure if the idea of saying "I wish you get raped" to a woman is so abhorrent I can't see myself saying it even in the heat of the moment.

              Wow this is what happens when you start writing a sentence then change it and well..... Let me say I actually meant to say.

              I never would be able to see myself saying something like "I hope you get raped" even in the heat of the moment. My god I reread that post edit time and went oh fuck.

          2. Teiwaz

            Re: Utterly unacceptable 'Gentleman'

            'Gentlemanly behaviour

            - Well that changes over time, a century or so ago, 'gentlemen' (or at least, that's how they saw themselves) went around invading countries and nicking their resources for pennies. Gentlemen were men with money, men without money were not gentlemen.

            There's always been a moral divergent between gentlemanly perception and actual actions (and among some 'ladies' as well).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utterly unacceptable

      "What part of our education system fails to teach basic social skills?"

      Well, you would expect parents to be the source of that training, leading by example.

      The problem is: how do you identify these half-wits and administer some corrective training?

      1. Mark 85

        @Meldreth -- Re: Utterly unacceptable

        True... but for one thing... they breed and multiply and that alone spreads the vileness. Many people here in the States have had years of the NEA and other groups pounding things into our heads that it's their job and parents shouldn't interfere. Well, schools have failed and parents don't know or understand how to pick up the slack.

        And... then there's the anonymous part of using the Internet. No one knows whether you're a dog or just an ass.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

          Am I on a different planet? Why wouldn't tech journalists call out Docker to share what they found when investigating this? It's not just El Reg, none of the tech pubs covering this story are calling out Docker to be more transparent about their investigation. Docker issues a non-response and tech journos just shrug.

          1. Seajay#

            Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

            Am I on a different planet? Why wouldn't tech journalists call out Docker to share what they found when investigating this? It's not just El Reg, none of the tech pubs covering this story are calling out Docker to be more transparent about their investigation. Docker issues a non-response and tech journos just shrug.

            Yes you are on a different planet. It's great that both Frazelle and Docker have spoken publicly about the impact of trolls and it's even better that they have shared some best practise for dealing with them.

            That doesn't entitle us to the personal details of their investigation, which might a) be more distressing for the victim if they are out in the open b) constitute a libel of an alleged troll who hasn't even been investigated by the police yet, never mind arrested, charged and convicted.

            Ask yourself why you want those investigation results. We already have enough information to understand what happened and what we should do if it happens to someone near us. Anything more would just be voyeurism.

          2. h4rm0ny

            Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

            Why should Docker share the results of private investigations? Aside from the fact there's a good chance it would do little good, there's a significant chance it would do a lot of harm - naming people who weren't guilty, prejudicing cases against those that were...

            It seems like a very positive thing to me that Docker took additional steps to try and deal with this problem. I'm more concerned about the fact that we're entering a situation where corporations have to take care of law enforcement for their employees rather than the State being able to provide this service.

          3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

            "Am I on a different planet?"

            You seem to be.

            "Why wouldn't tech journalists call out Docker to share what they found when investigating this?"

            Because they're sufficiently well-informed to realise that (a) investigations proceed best when the subject isn't warned of progress and (b) if the investigation results in court action such action might have to be dropped if prior publication were to be ruled prejudicial.

        2. g e

          Re: @Meldreth -- Utterly unacceptable

          To whit: Idiocracy

          A tongue-in-cheek but sadly prescient film

    3. Tac Eht Xilef

      Re: Utterly unacceptable

      "What part of our education system fails to teach basic social skills?"

      The part that operates 24hrs from ages 0-5, and ~4pm to ~8am up to the age of 17?

      1. Midnight

        Re: Utterly unacceptable

        "The part that operates 24hrs from ages 0-5, and ~4pm to ~8am up to the age of 17?"

        So, Television?

      2. BillG
        Megaphone

        Re: Utterly unacceptable

        "This industry is fucked," she wrote

        I would not blame the industry. It is that, unfortunately, the internet is an outlet for sociopaths. These are the people on forums that have no interest in sharing ideas and only feel pleasure at hurting people. It's a mental health issue, which also makes it a parenting issue.

        What these people desperately want is to be taken seriously. The best psychological defense really is to laugh at them. It drains their venom which stops them cold.

        1. Jez Burns

          Re: Utterly unacceptable

          Also a very small number of sociopaths, angry narcissists, antisocial loners (or teenagers - same difference probably) using an anonymous broadcasting platform with unlimited reach can have a hugely disproportionate influence. While not wanting to minimise the impact of hateful behaviour on victims, I wonder if the term 'endemic' is used wisely here. Even a small degree of fallout for the perpetrators (who are by definition cowards) would likely solve the problem.

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Devil

    Trolls?

    Find, remove teeth and kneecaps.

    Then move underneath bridge. From on high.

    1. David 132 Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Trolls?

      Then move underneath bridge. From on high.

      Misquoting Pratchett from memory:

      "How long can you hold your breath?"

      "Is that relevant?"

      "It is, in the case of being nailed by your kneecaps upside down under the Brass Bridge for two whole high tides, which is, I'm afraid, the traditional punishment for this..."

  4. William Higinbotham

    Starting or being a member of support and education organizations is important. One such group is Association for Women in Science (AWIS) http://www.awis.org/

    I know of one that is called Brookhaven Woman in Science https://www.bnl.gov/bwis/

    I personally feel that in this day and age we still need support groups to help our society grow and mature. Hopefully we will get to the point where these hostile environments will no longer exist.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      I find it very sad that "Women in xxx" groups feel the need to exist. I don't know if that's out of a genuine need or a perceived need.

      I do worry when Women in Computing troll out stats saying that a female at school today has only a tiny chance of becoming a CEO. It may be true, but ignores the fact that anyone, of any gender, at school today has only a tiny chance of becoming a CEO (unless that school is Eton).

      Personally I don't think I've ever encountered sexism or racism on a personal level at work. Four of the seven CIO/IT Directors in my career have been female. We do, unfortunately, have "positive" discrimination in my current job (the females who report to me are paid more than their male colleagues because they are rarer in the market) so I suppose we do have discrimination.

      I'm sure this post will offend huge numbers numbers for reasons I don't understand, but I'm a geek at heart and find all this social stuff very difficult.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        It's true but you shouldn't say it.

        --Marge Simpson.

      2. Grifter

        >>Personally I don't think I've ever encountered sexism or racism on a personal level at work.

        Well see, here's one problem with that; you're not a woman.

        Unless you are in their shoes (literally), you will never ever see or experience that offhand remark, the subtle but inappropriate touch, the leering, the sneering, the utter outrage from some men who yell obscenities at women who choose not to acknowledge them when 'all they did' was to tell them how pretty they were, as if the women exist merely to make some guy's boner happy.

        It is really easy as a man to say you've never seen or experienced it, and that might be why it gets dismissed or ridiculed when brought up; most women who are harassed don't even speak about it, usually for fear of retribution, getting fired, being pushed out.

        You having never seen or experienced it sadly means nothing, maybe it will mean something to you when it's your daughter or girlfriend whom it happens to.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > you will never ever see or experience that offhand remark, the subtle but inappropriate touch, the leering, the sneering

          Have you ever experienced being a man in a 99% female workplace? Thought not.

          1. Grifter

            >>Have you ever experienced being a man in a 99% female workplace?

            No, I have however heard anecdotally about men who feel uncomfortable and like they're being treated as a piece of meat in such a situation. Certainly harassment can go both ways, the difference however in all those instances were that women generally do not behave like predators and are nowhere as aggressive in their pursuant harassment. Nevertheless let me be clear, harassment is not ok and everyone has the right to feel safe in their workplace, free of worrying about what to wear or how they look for fear of someone who wasn't raised to treat people decently.

            That said... Have you known a lot of tech companies with a 99% female workforce? Thought not.

            1. Pat Att

              Certainly harassment can go both ways, the difference however in all those instances were that women generally do not behave like predators and are nowhere as aggressive in their pursuant harassment

              I don't know about where you live, but here men generally don't behave like predators either.

              1. Grifter

                Well-behaving men behave well? Also, water wet. Are you talking about men in general, or men who harass in general? I was under the impression we were talking about the latter. If over there, the men who harass don't behave like predators, kudos, I guess? Now if you could only get them to stop harassing too...

                1. Triggerfish

                  @Grifter

                  Before you get to offended Grifter note your previous statement seem to imply that genreally speaking men are sexist predators, that comes across as a huge generalisation. I guess you didn't mean it but it does read like that.

                  1. Grifter

                    Re: @Grifter

                    Well let me rephrase for you - a person who sexually harasses another is predatory, it's traditionally been helped by the unwillingness of the victim to come forward out of fear of retribution, in this environment predators thrive, and yes traditionally this dynamic has men being the predator, by far. I thought my last post made that clear, most men are not people who harass women, but you don't get a cookie or a medal for being a decent human being, it's simply expected.

            2. MonkeyCee

              hmm

              >>Have you ever experienced being a man in a 99% female workplace?

              I've worked in a place with 90% female staff, 99% female users (students). Apart from the odd inappropriate comment from a teenager* all the abuse, harassment and accusations of being a feelthy peedo** came from.... men. Mainly parents, and a relief teacher who's subsequently turned out to be pretty dodgy.

              At the universities I worked at a the ratio was about 3-1 female to male, and also no real harassment from the ladies, and the various vendettas carried out seemed to be more about politics and less gender.

              If you've not been an obvious target, then it's easy to assume it simply doesn't happen. I grew my hair long, and suddenly I get random guys yelling at me, ranging from the funny to scary. Walk around holding hands with a women, no comments. Take a stroll holding your boyfriends hand, and you get assaulted.

              While I've told this tale before, it bears a quick retelling. Chap on the service desk with me was cracking a series of "jokes" about rape and prostitutes, including the claim that "you can't rape a whore, that's just theft". So I told him that a) prostitutes are still people, and often a tad vulnerable to sexual assualts, b) rape is not an OK subject matter for joking about in the office and c) fucking a passed out woman is rape, and yeah, that does make you a self confessed rapist.

              He reported me to HR, who dragged me out for a bollocking which lasted about thirty seconds when they realised that they had gotten the wrong end of the stick, and that the person making the complaint was the one who had been making the NSFW comments. Watching the prick squirm when he was trying to defend his "humor" at the meeting where he and I where the only chaps, HR and big boss being both female. He shortly afterwards decided to seek opportunities elsewhere.

              Just to be clear, most men are civil and decent. It does behoove us to call out the ones who aren't, in case they take our silence for consent or agreement.

              * I'd gotten another engineer to come help me out for a week, and he rode a motorbike with full leathers and looked like a greek god. Got a couple of requests for the "sexy IT guy" to come by more often. Oh and some flirty texts when they got hold of my mobile number, but they got to talk to their dean about respect and whatnot.

              ** Not the sensible stuff, like ensuring your behavior is of in loco parentis and above reproach at all times, keeping a door open when you're alone with a student, and handling the inevitable teenage crushes with care and dignity.

              1. werdsmith Silver badge

                Re: hmm

                The anecdote time then.

                Twice I've witnessed this event:

                Hot guy from marketing makes lewd flirty comment to girl about her appearance. Girl giggles and flushes, is flattered and tells her mates about it.

                Creepy guy from IT makes a comparatively innocuous (compared to previous hot guy) comment complimenting same girls appearance. Girl is appalled, creepy IT guy finds himself in hot water with complaint against him for sexist behaviour.

                1. h4rm0ny
                  Paris Hilton

                  Re: hmm

                  Well yes. Comes-ons from people you find attractive who know how to come on to you, are received differently from people you don't find attractive and whose come-ons feel kind of threatening. If a good-looking guy says something flattering to me and seems confident and casual about it, I'm usually okay with that. If an unattractive guy who has clearly been planning out the scenario of coming on to me - typically with a transparent disguise of trying to do me some favour to show what a good friend they are to me - for the past two weeks does it, I react differently. Especially if it makes me uncomfortable to the point I think it's going to be a growing problem with someone I have to work with.

                  That's how flirting works. Different reactions are given to different people.

                  So anyway, anecdote time if we're doing this. My general impression, as I've said before on this topic, is that most men I've worked with have been entirely decent nice people. I think it does vary by sector and country. In Germany, I have never encountered discernible sexism ever. I'm sure it must exist, but nowhere I've been. Absolutely great. In the UK, I've only a couple of times encountered real sexism in the IT sector. And in both cases, the attitude of everyone else in the place nipped the sexist people's behaviour in the bud (for which I was very grateful). Amongst Marketing and Sales people, incidences of sexism has been much higher. I think that is a general symptom of the kind of sleazy circles and old-boy network environments of this sector. You get a lot of sexism in marketing and sales departments or companies. The worst sector in the UK, ime, is the financial sector. Here sexism is high and especially, in my brief overlaps with it, in The City. There is a long way to go in eradicating sexism there. But in IT departments in the UK, mostly fine imo. Good, in fact.

                  The USA has more of a sexism problem. In fact, outside of the Middle East, I think it's the worst. MOST of the people I've worked with in the USA have been alright, but it's definitely a much greater incidence of sexist attitudes I have found there and I've worked in a couple of places where the sexism is very real and has very definitely adversely affected women's career opportunities and earnings. I'm sorry to say it, but I wouldn't particularly want to work for a US corporation again based on some of my experiences there.

                  Anyway, all the above is anecdotal and only ONE PERSON's experience (mine). So please only take it as that. (Paris, because she's the only discernibly female representation we have in the icons. ;) )

                  1. werdsmith Silver badge

                    Re: hmm

                    "Different reactions for different people" as an attempt to explain away that double standard really does not cut it.

                    1. h4rm0ny

                      Re: hmm

                      >>"Different reactions for different people" as an attempt to explain away that double standard really does not cut it.

                      What double standard are you referring to? That someone reacts differently to someone they find attractive and non-threatening to someone they don't find attractive and do feel threatened by? That's the example I gave and I think as explanations go, it's a pretty clear one. What explanation for reacting differently to sexual advances from two different people do think is more likely, than how welcome they are?

                      Keep in mind that the situation you've raised is not one of sexism. It's not related to the difficult situation this woman faced with rape threats, it's not about career opportunity or discrimination. You posted a story about someone coming onto a woman sexually in the workplace. You held it up as wrong that in one case she flirted back with the "hot guy" and then treated the other guy "from IT" differently. So yes, my "explanation" that the difference is down to whether the advance was welcome or not is likely the right one. That's not a "double-standard", unless you think that someone should respond equally to sexual advances regardless of whether they're welcome or not.

                      Basically, you've gone off on a tangent about something that isn't an issue of sexism. A man is equally entitled to respond differently to two different women flirting with him.

                      1. werdsmith Silver badge

                        Re: hmm

                        @h4rm0ny

                        What double standard are you referring to? That someone reacts differently to someone they find attractive and non-threatening to someone they don't find attractive and do feel threatened by?

                        You've concocted a lot of specious circumstances to try and justify what boils down to:

                        "This guy is attractive so he can say whatever he likes" and

                        "I don't like the look of this guy so if he so much as puts a foot wrong I'll try and wreck his livelihood".

                        Which is at least as bad an attitude as any of the perceived sexism, in fact it damn near is sexism.

                        There was no threat, the guy was just not attractive. In the outcome of both cases, the complaint was not upheld (by the female HR people), and in the second one the person involved was a persistent stirrer and made herself unpopular by her actions.

                        As for going off a tangent, no. I followed the tangent off from a previous comment.

                        1. Grifter

                          Re: hmm

                          That's some grade A trolling right there mr werdsmith.

                          1. werdsmith Silver badge

                            Re: hmm

                            Some grade A playing the troll card there Mr Grifter.

                            No dice.

                        2. Adair Silver badge

                          Re: hmm

                          @werdsmith, re h4rm0ny - I get the impression you are being obtuse. No doubt h4rm0ny can speak for herself, but ISTM she is talking about the everyday realities of 'human relationships', not the everyday realities of manoeuvring and manipulation in the dog-eat-dog world of clawing your way up the greasy pole of notional 'status'.

                          Too many of us are far too easily offended, it's part of our unhealthy approach to life. Far too many of us are willing to cause offence, it's part of our unhealthy approach to life. Some of us manage to combine both weaknesses.

                          Thankfully many of us generally (even almost always) keep ourselves in check, are considerate and caring towards others, and willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, or just let stupidity and crassness go, on the basis that it's actually their problem, not mine.

                          There are a few who imagine that being crass and stupid and downright objectionable is their prerogative. They need taking down, for their own sakes as well as for the sake of those who have to deal with their abject failure to learn that they are not the centre of everything.

                        3. h4rm0ny

                          Re: hmm

                          >>You've concocted a lot of specious circumstances to try and justify what boils down to: ""This guy is attractive so he can say whatever he likes" and "I don't like the look of this guy so if he so much as puts a foot wrong I'll try and wreck his livelihood".

                          Have I? I wasn't there and your post begins by complaining that a "hot guy" (your words) made sexual comments to a girl and she was okay with it but that an "unattractive, creepy IT guy" came and commented sexually on her appearance and she did not like that. You then got annoyed, saying that treating people differently based on whether their advances were welcome or not wasn't an "explanation". Now I don't know whether or not her going to HR and complaining about him was justified or not - like I said, I wasn't there. But I can say a few things about it. Firstly, if this thing by itself results in "wrecking his livelihood" there's some context missing from this story. Was his livelihood actually wrecked? Or did he just get called in for a chat about workplace etiquette? Secondly, you well know, or should, that there is a lot more to communication than just words repeated on a page. You complain that his comments were less lewd than the "hot guy's". But that's not the criteria by which such things are assessed. They're assessed by the intent behind them, by the person delivering them. Like it or not, that's the facts of life. Nobody gets to go "He said she had a nice arse and she didn't mind, so she has to be okay when I tell her how soft her skin is", or whatever.

                          Maybe she was jumpy and over-reacted and he would have taken a mild rebuff and never bothered her again. Maybe she didn't and he wouldn't. But either way, what has this to do with the story we're talking about or the general case? Is it your position that women shouldn't be able to file a complaint about a guy who bothers them sexually in the work place? Or that a woman should be mandated to complain when she doesn't want to? Is it that you feel women have too much power over male colleagues by means of being able to report them for sexual advances in the workplace? If so, are you saying that a male employee is not allowed to file complaints? What exactly is your contention here? Because you seem to just be complaining about a double standard between attractive people and unattractive people. Which, you know...

                          Making sexual advances to someone in the workplace is a risky business. Is there really anybody that this is news to? You don't do it unless you have a reasonable expectation that it wont bother the recipient, and if you do do it, you try to do it in such a way that it minimizes embarrassment and allows a get-out for all concerned. It sounds like your "hot guy" has such skills and that your "creepy IT guy" came across as, well, creepy and threatening. And for all we know, he did. So I refer you back to my middle paragraph - what exactly is your complaint here? That women shouldn't be able to voice complains to HR if someone makes a creepy and threatening advance to them? That they should have to complain even when the advance is welcome? That a specific person reacted in a way you didn't like and you think this is representative of women generally? Because all of this is how it comes across.

                          1. This post has been deleted by its author

                          2. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: hmm

                            I wasn't there and your post begins by complaining that a "hot guy" (your words) made sexual comments to a girl and she was okay with it but that an "unattractive, creepy IT guy" came and commented sexually on her appearance and she did not like that.

                            No, he said the "creepy" guy made "comparatively innocuous" compliments. That his statements were of a sexual nature was your assertion, and that is not a fair assumption to make. As you say; you weren't there.

                            Or that a woman should be mandated to complain when she doesn't want to?

                            Many professional responsibilities regarding standards and ethics include things which an individual (of ANY gender) may not want to do, or personally feel no need to do.

                            what exactly is your complaint here? That women shouldn't be able to voice complains to HR if someone makes a creepy and threatening advance to them? That they should have to complain even when the advance is welcome?

                            If making sexual advances is acceptable in a workplace, then she has no grounds to complain (to HR) when she doesn't like it. If sexual advances are *not* acceptable in a workplace, then she should not accept such behaviour, even when she likes it. That's called professionalism.

          2. Triggerfish

            I have, worked in a lot of textile environments, not quite 99% but definetly near it. Never really got sexist harrasment, attempts to be set up on date, many more questions about every daily facet of your life and friends and family than a bloke would care to ask, burning ears from some of the conversations (still take notes it might come in handy), but thats it. Although technically pretty sure if the situation was reversed and some men talked like a group of women can talk about about sex it would make them uncorfotable, pretty sure some blokes would be as well.

          3. Glenturret Single Malt

            My son, when a student, had to give up a catering job after just a few days for exactly that reason (about 25 years ago).

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            I managed a 90% female team once a few years back and I have to admit I have never dealt with so many bullying issues before or after. All the bullying was of other females I hasten to add and all by the younger members.

            And this is a company that values diversity and equality very highly. We did resolve it (or did it just get hidden by the perpetrators better?) but it was quite an unexpected shock for me I can tell you.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "Have you ever experienced being a man in a 99% female workplace?"

            Yes. And there were sometimes inappropriate things said but never about physical attributes and almost always followed by a very embarrassed silence; in some cases an apology (almost always unnecessary), and only in one case a very nasty "now you know how we feel" comment that the other women shouted down so fast .....

            Out of the work place, one of the most fun teams I've worked in. In the work place, very professional, with occasional close-to-the-line (but never over it) jokes. The only time it got stupid was when US visitors came and had to have humoUr explained as they couldn't see that line .....

  5. Stevie

    Bah!

    One wonders at the psychology involved.

  6. Michael Hoffmann Silver badge

    Two things I wonder about

    1) How endemic is it? I mean, what percentage of males in IT commit these crimes (and yes, I consider it criminal behaviour)? A single sociopathic, misogynistic lose has a huge "force multiplier" nowadays and can reach hundreds of women anonymously. Is this the same minority of sick weirdos responsible for as many as 50% of women in IT receiving this sort of abuse?

    2) Is vigilantism an answer if the police won't deal with it? >.<

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: How endemic is it?

      Social Media, number of active twitter accounts - around 230 million.

      So if you can find 100 people in that 230 million who want to abuse you via twitter then that is 0.0000435% of the user base.

      If you put yourself up in front of millions then there will be a few who are not the full ticket amongst those millions prepared to do things that the rest of us find abhorrent. I don't think we are talking about normal humans, but social media is exposing those who have brains that are not correctly wired.

      In my small world I don't know anyone who would even understand the motivation behind this stuff, but search far enough and I might find one. Cast the net over the whole world and you'll find a few. Give the whole world a direct line to yourself and I expect you'll hear from a few.

      I don't think this is even new, famous folk who get their faces on the telly have been taking their share of stick for decades. They get harassed and stalked, some have even been murdered.

      And that's without even mentioning the cultures of the world where women are not expected to be in any position of leadership or acclaim.

      1. Imsimil Berati-Lahn

        Re: How endemic is it?

        You're quite right. Given a large enough audience, such heinousness is a simple, sad statistical inevitablity. I think it is incumbent upon the social media industry to give users the option to automatically mute / ignore / delete any messages without traceable provonence. If you're coming in from an anon proxy or similar, we as users should be able to choose to assume that you're up to no good and automatically ignore any (potential) bile that might otherwise come our way.

      2. Lamont Cranston

        Re: How endemic is it? (@werdsmith)

        You're right, this is nothing new. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable.

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: How endemic is it? (@werdsmith)

          @Lamont Cranston

          You're are also right, it doesn't mean that it's acceptable. That doesn't mean that I was an any way suggesting that it's acceptable.

          I really don't know how you could possibly infer otherwise, especially as I mentioned murder.

      3. Kubla Cant

        Re: How endemic is it?

        Social Media, number of active twitter accounts - around 230 million.

        So if you can find 100 people in that 230 million who want to abuse you via twitter then that is 0.0000435% of the user base.

        True, but in this case the abuse seems to have been a response to Jessie Frazelle's activities on behalf of Docker. No disparagement to Docker, but that's not exactly mass exposure. Most of the 230m Twats have never heard of Docker and wouldn't be interested in a presentation that explained it.

        One of the many depressing things about this story is that the abuse presumably emanated from IT specialists, people who might be presumed to be better-educated and more intelligent than average.

        1. Nigel 11

          Re: How endemic is it?

          One of the many depressing things about this story is that the abuse presumably emanated from IT specialists, people who might be presumed to be better-educated and more intelligent than average.

          Your point being? I'd simply deduce that the education/intelligence axis and the abusive/socially inadequate axis are poorly correlated. Or possibly even that there is a weak inverse correlation.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: How endemic is it?

            Being intelligent and having a good education in high class university and having no empathy or remorse at all, bordering to psychopath, are the key features for a successful CEO.

            So no, intelligence doesn't guarantee anything at all: Intelligent persons are only able to abuse other people more effectively.

            Not only that: Our society calls that "success" as success is measured directly with dollars and no matter what kind of a**hole you otherwise are.

    2. Nigel 11

      Re: Two things I wonder about

      Is vigilantism an answer if the police won't deal with it?

      What about legal vigilantism? "Out" them. Strip them of their anonymity and publish their real identity to the world. Let them know what it's like to be harassed.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Two things I wonder about

        Exposing, seen it from the sidelines.

        This does work

        When trolls get threatening phone calls from their victims it tends to stop them.

        For every twisted little troll there is a victim with psycopathic tendancies.

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Two things I wonder about

          I have seen funny/good results after someone has tracked down a troll, and from there found their parents and then forwarded a representative sample to the troll's mother asking "did you know your son talks to women like this?".

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Seajay#

        Re: Two things I wonder about

        What about legal vigilantism? "Out" them. Strip them of their anonymity and publish their real identity to the world. Let them know what it's like to be harassed.

        That doesn't sound like legal vigilantism to me, that sounds like harassment, which is a crime.

        The reason vigilantism is bad is because the mob has no accurate way of assessing someone's guilt. If you think you can identify the troll and prove they did it. Great, pass that information to the police.

        Just as a reminder, sometimes this happens.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you really wanted to, you could

    Let me see. Some half-wit mutters something online about bomb/plot/virgin/inshallah and the entire resources of the State have the capability to track that person down. Some half-wit mutters something about rape/death and the feds throw up their hands?

    It's a question of will.

    If I was CEO of Docker and one of my people was being harassed like this on FB or Twitter you can be very sure I would be <i>all over</i> Messrs. Zuckerberg and Dorsey to get a resolution and be very public about doing so. The valley lives or dies by its ability to acquire and keep talent. Mess with my talent and you mess with my unicorn. I <i>hate</i> that.

    1. Red Bren

      Re: If you really wanted to, you could

      I like the way the FBI have suddenly discovered territorial limits to their jurisdiction when faced with sexist hate crime. But you can bet they would soon forget again if another Gary McKinnon "hacked" into their servers using a default username/password!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If you really wanted to, you could

        @Red Bren - +1000 upvotes from me, if only I could. If they're saying that trolls can't be found via t'internet, then neither can terrorists and no governmental organisation (NSA, GCHQ) has a leg to stand on when arguing fro access to all of our emails etc.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If you really wanted to, you could

        Yes, the FBI have suddenly discovered territorial limits to their jurisdiction.

        Yes, but not for the Gary McKinnons!

        Because Gary is part of the SAME jurisdiction – the 51st state, Five Eyes.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If you really wanted to, you could

      "I would be all over Messrs. Zuckerberg and Dorsey to get a resolution and be very public about doing so."

      I thought the article said this was done via IRC.

  8. Phil Kingston

    Yep, I reckon Docker should do the decent thing and release details of the harassment that was aimed at their employee.

    Pretty sure they'd be a lot of folk willing to help track the nutbags down.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Yep, I reckon Docker should do the decent thing and release details of the harassment that was aimed at their employee."

      You mean, in effect, repeat the harassment in public?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Women are more than 50% of the world's population and if you have issues with women then imo you are in for a rough ride through life.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      depends where you live. half the population of a certain area of the world seem to have incredible trouble relating to women and they do alright. If, by "doing alright", you mean "living a hot dusty miserable existence made only marginally better by the fact that the women here are living even more miserably than I".

  10. HmmmYes

    What a sad bunch of cunts.

  11. TJ1
    Stop

    Troll mentality? - a story of abuse

    Having been in from before the start of IRC - the first generally available anonymous Internet chat (excluding compuserve et al.) - I've observed this troll behaviour with some fascination, coming to understand or at least rationalise it, since it is an alien mentality to me.

    I adopt the "laugh at them" approach, both for attacks aimed at me and at others around me - but just once - then totally ignore the trolling either mentally, or using technical measures (/ignore /ban etc.).

    What I've observed is that all troll's *CRAVE* attention and wither away rapidly if they feel they're ignored. Even if you're reacting in the background (logging, tracing IPs, dropping honey-pot URLs into your conversation for them to visit [giving you info about their browser agent]) there should be a total lack of reaction in the troll's eyes.

    A few years back my partner ( a man) was subject to escalating abuse that began online with blackmail-style attempts (threats to make allegations to me that would cause distrust in our relationship, etc.).

    My partner was hugely upset and depressed by it, adopted what I call the 'victim mentality' and generally playing into the abuser's hands until I became aware and initiated a plan to identify them and put a stop to it.

    It rapidly escalated to the real-world, first with poison letters to me, then to getting home visits from random (male) strangers at silly hours of the night who thought they were onto a random sex meet-up!

    For the latter we tried to persuade several to provide details of how they had been fooled but most - understandably - were very embarrassed and eager to leave. So much so we recorded their vehicle registration numbers and later passed them to the police.

    Due to the personal knowledge it was a reasonably good bet someone who knew us well was responsible so we set a honeytrap web-site and managed to get our primary suspect to visit it. That allowed us to correlate the IP and user-agent with details in some supposedly anonymous emails sent via services that add the SMTP X-Originating-IP header.

    That gave us information about the ISP being used which correlated with yet more information we gathered on our range of suspects (from postmarks, etc), and we eventually got a perfect match that confirmed our primary suspect.

    With all that information we made a complaint of harassment to the local police. A regular copper dealt with it and couldn't have been more helpful. Although she lacked the technical knowledge she was able to follow our (well organised and explained) evidence and through more technical colleagues rapidly came to the same conclusion as us.

    The ISP information we'd gathered turned out to be the suspect's sister's family so when the police called at their house (in another county on the East Coast near Skegness) it of course made the entire family aware. From the sister they obtained the telephone number of the suspect and invited him in for an interview where - we are told - he was a trembling wreck. Presented with the evidence fell apart, admitted it, but had no rational explanation for the behaviour.

    He was given a formal caution and a warning that any further contact and he'd be charged and taken to court. The last we heard was one last anonymous message saying he was "goodbye, I'm going to kill myself tonight". That was four years ago and we've not heard anything since.

    I theorise it can't have done any harm in the online communities my partner used to hear the story since it marked him as someone to be wary of.

    Sorry for the ramble but I wanted to give some confidence to others who may be targets that you do have options, especially if you have, or can obtain, technically literate expertise and a more cunning thought process!

    In summary, trolls crave attention, are usually (but not always) meek and retiring in person, and generally have an inferiority complex. Thus, they feel safe to use anonymous mediums to attack people they deem weaker than themselves in an attempt to boost their own ego in their own eyes.

    So, laughing at them can send the message "I'm confident and more psychologically strong than you" which lets them know they'll end up loosing so they rapidly loose interest.

    If you are subject to such abuse and aren't mentally strong enough to counter it yourself I urge you to ask for help from someone who is and can - but avoid hot-heads that think making threats to the abuser will help in any way. At the least register a complaint (in writing, get an incident number, etc.) with the police to establish a history so if it later escalates it will be dealt with more urgently.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Troll mentality? - a story of abuse

      I'd just like to say that was an inspiring story both for the cleverness you showed in unmasking the perpetrator and for your first reaction being to stand by and support your male partner in this. Attacking someone by threatening to start rumours and sow doubt between a couple is a disgusting, horrible act.

    2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: Troll mentality? - a story of abuse

      Someone got a bit obsessed with me on Twitter: they invited me to their home, wanted my address so they could come visit (thank $deity I don't use my real name) and made suicide threats. I talked to them sympathetically but unemotionally until they realised I wasn't interested, and then they moved on.

      I suspect, but can't prove, they became a voluminous and slightly incoherent commenter on the popular blog of a well-known sf writer.

      1. Dangermouse 1

        Re: Troll mentality? - a story of abuse

        > I suspect, but can't prove, they became a voluminous and slightly

        > incoherent commenter on the popular blog of a well-known sf writer.

        Either SF writers' blogs attract a lot of nutters, or we all know exactly who you mean ;)

    3. Matt Bridge-Wilkinson

      Re: Troll mentality? - a story of abuse

      Utterly wonderful! I salute you!

  12. Kmgriffi

    Jessie Frazelle is still a rara avis in tech, the architect, so adept and expert in her deep dive specialty that she makes excellent offhand jokes and conveys her coolest innovations with a wonderful, piratical glee. Of course she inspires malice and hate from lesser practitioners. She does all of this while female. I'm a hard tech sysadmin, female and of a certain age. The nastiest treatment I receive is from men over 50. She (and I) aren't supposed to revel in being good at what we do, we're not properly deferential, we TELL MEN THEY ARE WRONG (that's the mortal sin). I likely get a bye from trolls under 40, because I'm older, I'm not as threatening. Jessie Frazelle is attacked in a personal, violent, and sexual way that should be investigated and prosecuted in order to eventually make tech safe for excellence to be gender-free.

    All that said, I have found "women in computing" groups to be sadly deficient in actual tech. I come to the meetings a woman who has been deeply immersed in hardware, networking, OS, and applications for 30+ years. Find the entire group focus to be about managing tech groups or companies. Young women with essentially no tech who see tech management as a hot ticket. It's very disappointing.

    Somehow, I want to spend time with the Jessie Frazelle's, listening and learning, laughing and encouraging, maybe with a few drinks. They are our treasures, protect, nurture and advance them.

    1. kmac499

      Well argued;

      I have had the pleasure of mentoring student programmers male and female. My approach needed to be tailored to the individuals ability and backstory.

      At the time most of the young women didn't 'think' they had a practical skill or knowledge. Sorry to stereotype but when I discovered that some had needlework interests or musical abilities it didn't take long to convince them that the ability to follow patterns, sheet music and interpret them to achieve the end result was just as useful as some of the young mens experience spending weekends tinkereing with cars.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Female engineer as a co-worker

        Quite an attractive young (married) woman, and she turned out to be a good engineer, very detail oriented, and quite confident presenting the results to clients. It was interesting to watch them as she presented and answered questions. She was a no nonsense professional, and that was always the image I had of her. I kept my conversations with her on a professional level, and she did mention that she had supervisors in other jobs who were not as comfortable dealing with a woman engineer. My reply was "their loss, our gain".

        For all the other white male engineers out there, skin color, gender, sexual preference -- none of it should matter. They're your co-workers, and just like you, they're there to get the job done. Treat them as fellow professionals, and you might be surprised at the reaction.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Female engineer as a co-worker

          >For all the other white male engineers out there,

          Not allowed to assume things about women, visual minorities but blanket statements against white males no problem?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Female engineer as a co-worker

            If I were more evil I really am, I'd call that feminism in action. And having double standards.

            But let's call it "temporary blindness to what you actually say" instead of that, for now, as everybody say some stupid things once in a while.

  13. dipopo

    Re: Utterly unacceptable

    Not just Women, but everyone....being a black techie is a nightmare, you are seldom judged on the contents of your brain....rather the colour of your skin, disgusting behaviour!

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Utterly unacceptable

      >>"Not just Women, but everyone....being a black techie is a nightmare, you are seldom judged on the contents of your brain....rather the colour of your skin, disgusting behaviour!"

      Do you mind if I ask where you work? UK or USA?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utterly unacceptable

      "being a black techie is a nightmare"

      And the oppression Olympics has begun. It's not me, it's the white cis male patriarchy!!

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The biological imperative.

    Operates on male and female alike. Females are under as much compulsion to open their legs as males are to open them.

    We may have superior class operating systems, but the hardware is ROM coded and very very hard to override.

    Instead of blaming each other, how about facing up to the real world, rather than the kindergarten cartoon the politically correct draw, of society and social relations.

    The very best women I have met in business, manage to acknowledge their sexuality, and then set it aside for the purposes of doing business. True feminism is not about neutering the world, its about acknowledging biology, and transcending it.

    Of course those that have, have no time for 'feminism', which remains the province of those who have not.

    AC because I dont want to be subjected to death threats, pictures photoshopped with blood etc etc.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: The biological imperative.

      >>Instead of blaming each other, how about facing up to the real world, rather than the kindergarten cartoon the politically correct draw, of society and social relations. [...] Of course those that have, have no time for 'feminism', which remains the province of those who have not.

      Everytime someone complains about political correctness, my instinct is to suspect they are annoyed at not being able to use phrases like "doll" or "the little lady". And every time the same person goes on to declare that "feminists" are against sex, it reinforces that.

      Feminism is simply the seeking of equal opportunities for women as there are for men. That is neither anti-sex nor mutually exclusive with supporting equal opportunities for men (e.g. fair consideration for men in custody settlements). Yes, you get the odd Adria Richards type person who wears the label of Feminism whilst using it to attack over trivial and inoffensive things. But that no more makes it right for you to indulge in the old "feminists are women who aren't getting any" trope than the Nation of Islam group makes seeking racial equality a bad thing.

      Feminism isn't about 'beating men'. It's just recognition that there are some problems, amply illustrated by this story, that there are some problems which, whilst not wholly unique to women, are primarily faced by them and trying to solve that so that everybody (not just one gender), can be judged on merit.

      >>"AC because I dont want to be subjected to death threats, pictures photoshopped with blood etc etc."

      Honestly, I think downvotes are the only thing you'd really have to worry about.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The biological imperative.

        Feminism is simply the seeking of equal opportunities for women as there are for men.

        No, it isn't. That may be what it claims to be, but in practice it's not that at all.

        And no matter how much you may claim equal opportunities, its all pie in the sky, because nature endows us all with different opportunities.

        As a male I will never have the opportunity to become pregnant, spend months off work, and when I get bored with motherhood, expect to get my old job back.

        For example.

        As someone who didn't go to Eton, or was born to immigrant parents and have a black face, I wont get an equal opportunity to grace the Commons benches.

        Neither will I get an equal opportunity to compete in Miss World competitions.

        This ceaseless drive for 'equality' has but one outcome. We will all be lowered to the worst possible status and be all equally repressed miserable and curtailed, because anything else wouldn't be 'fair' to those 'less fortunate' than ourselves.

        If one man isn't safe at 30mph, then we must have a 20 mph speed limit. If one man or woman won't take 'no' for an answer,. we must all video record and get signed waivers before we have sex. Or simply forgo the pleasure.

        IN the limit, the only way to equalise opportunity is to send everyone to the death camps before they have a chance to breed.

        I am surprised the New Left hasn’t got there yet. The Old Left did. The Greens are getting there..

        It all sounds so positive and innocent. 'Equality of opportunity' Rah! Rah!

        Until you try and work out what it really means...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The biological imperative.

        "Feminism is simply the seeking of equal opportunities for women as there are for men."

        I often see that claim and I'll say it's false and the user tries to redefine a derogative term to suit political agenda.

        Feminism is the female version of chauvinism and no, it's not about equality but supremacy. As much chauvinism is: No more, no less.

        I've seen that go so far that some people are called "female chauvinists" while we have an exact term for it: A feminist.

        Unfortunately the women liberation movement took a very bad word to describe themselves and now the militant section of the movement is literally feminists, female supremacists with the idea that males are unnecessary and should be eliminated by genocide.

        And yes, I've seen that idea written down as official goal in the movement monthly publication.

        Somehow it brings "the final solution" to my mind.

        1. Grifter

          Re: The biological imperative.

          >>Somehow it brings "the final solution" to my mind.

          And the Hitler award goes to Hyperbolic AC! Congratulations!

        2. h4rm0ny
          Paris Hilton

          Re: The biological imperative.

          It's barely worth replying given how voting shows everyone can see the obvious counter-arguments to your posts for themselves. However, because I hate historical revisionism...

          >>"I often see that claim and I'll say it's false and the user tries to redefine a derogative term to suit political agenda."

          When feminism as a movement emerged in Nineteenth Century UK and France, women were denied the right to vote and the law had numerous double-standards. They defined different property rights for men and women differently, for example. Can you imagine a situation where marrying granted the male legal right to handle all economic issues of their partner? Is opposing that what you want to say is originally a derogative term? After much campaigning and active fighting for equality, women in the UK got the right to vote like men, if they were over thirty and owned property. This was in 1918. Just under a century ago. These are the origins of the term Feminism. How you can claim it was a "derogative [sic] term" that modern people have redefined with your bare face hanging out, I'll never know.

          I'm a feminist. Have been since I was a teenager. And if anyone is trying to redefine the term, it's you.

          >>"is literally feminists, female supremacists with the idea that males are unnecessary and should be eliminated by genocide."

          The world must seem a very scary place to you. Meanwhile, on this planet, the men I meet don't seem terrified of me and treat me as a human being. And when they don't, it's usually because of some horrible aspect of my own personality as an individual, not because of anything inherent to my sex. People like you are the exception. Congratulations - you have become Adria Richards with a penis. :)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The biological imperative.

            I'm a feminist. Have been since I was a teenager. And if anyone is trying to redefine the term, it's you.

            Just to butt in on the question of definition, were you a feminist before Germaine Greer?

            If not then your claim that gender equality is in the definition of feminism is definitely revisionist. She was rebutting that decades ago.

            The lack of an authoritative definition of what is and isn't feminism is the cause of most of the arguments about it. Confirmation bias makes some people remember the best parts exclusively and others remember the worst parts exclusively. Add one internet, mix and get depressed.

            1. h4rm0ny

              Re: The biological imperative.

              >>"Just to butt in on the question of definition, were you a feminist before Germaine Greer?"

              No, but then my statement of what feminism is not, isn't based on my having seniority over someone else in when I started using it. That would be silly. It is based, as you have read in my post, on the origins of the modern movement which coined the term in the first place, which goes back to the Nineteenth Century and women's suffrage in France and the UK. Emmeline Pankhurst and Marie Stopes were feminists before both Germaine Greer and myself, and it's these examples which I used as evidence.

              Trying to throw out my argument by suggesting it's an argument from authority (i.e. "my definition is the right one because it's mine"), is to skip, oh, about a paragraph and a half of my post.

              >>"If not then your claim that gender equality is in the definition of feminism is definitely revisionist"

              Firstly, see above - your premise is flawed. Secondly, I don't believe those words above are mine. What I wrote is that "Feminism" is not a revisionist interpretation of a derogatory term. Unless you are arguing that it is, then you accept my position criticising the AC that claimed such a stupid thing.

          2. Seajay#

            Re: The biological imperative.

            When feminism as a movement emerged in Nineteenth Century UK and France, women were denied the right to vote and the law had numerous double-standards. They defined different property rights for men and women differently, for example. Can you imagine a situation where marrying granted the male legal right to handle all economic issues of their partner? Is opposing that what you want to say is originally a derogative term? After much campaigning and active fighting for equality, women in the UK got the right to vote like men, if they were over thirty and owned property. This was in 1918. Just under a century ago. These are the origins of the term Feminism. How you can claim it was a "derogative [sic] term" that modern people have redefined with your bare face hanging out, I'll never know.

            You're right, when feminism started it was absolutely necessary and good. At that time there were huge, legally enshrined, differences in the treatment of men and women. Women clearly needed more rights so there was little practical difference between fighting for more rights for women and fighting for equality.

            Now (in the west) things are very different. Women have legal parity (or better) with men in every area. So someone who has continued the same fight for more rights for women has, without changing their behaviour, gone from fighting for more gender equality to fighting for less gender equality.

            We see this tendency in all sorts of places. For example the terribly persecuted Shia majority in Iraq under Saddam clearly needed more rights but what happened when the regime was toppled? They didn't put an end to oppression, they just switched places and started oppressing the Sunnis.

            1. h4rm0ny
              Paris Hilton

              Re: The biological imperative.

              >>"Now (in the west) things are very different. Women have legal parity (or better) with men in every area. So someone who has continued the same fight for more rights for women has, without changing their behaviour, gone from fighting for more gender equality to fighting for less gender equality"

              Sexism isn't about war between two factions, it's about disregarding someone's sex when judging their abilities or what opportunities they have. And it's about stamping out abuse based on someone's sex. You see it as two sides in a war fighting over power - your attitude is part of the problem. It's really about a world full of individuals and not splitting them up needlessly into factions based on some arbitrary criteria that isn't relevant to the matter in hand. And you are making your comments about how women have it better than men on a story about how a woman was hounded with death and rape threats because she was a woman. Quite literally, this story would not have happened if this were a male developer.

              The finance sector in particular still has prevalent sexism. Every year British women get forced into marriages or sent abroad to undergo forced removal of the clitoris. Repeatedly women with an online presence have to deal with sexual harassment and abuse because they are women. In the USA I know first-hand of multiple cases where someone has been sidelined for positions or paid less because they are female. All these are facts. None of them would harm male rights if we could stamp them out. It's less than a hundred years since we got the right to vote. It took 46 years for the Women's Suffrage campaign to get that right to vote. And another decade after that before it was extended to women of the same age as men who could vote, and didn't require a woman to be wealthy to do so. There are people alive today, still compos mentis and able to have a good old discussion with you who remember these events. And you really think all anti-female prejudice is gone and any argument for equal rights is now an attack on men in disguise? You have no idea.

              >>"They didn't put an end to oppression, they just switched places and started oppressing the Sunnis."

              You may feel oppressed but clearly the majority of men here do not. Maybe they have something you don't. Feminism will have achieved its aims when the law and people don't think in terms of men vs. women, but just in terms of people. You may wish to demonize or corrupt the word feminism, but you wont.

              1. Seajay#

                Re: The biological imperative.

                Sexism isn't about war between two factions, it's about disregarding someone's sex when judging their abilities or what opportunities they have.

                Absolutely, we all (or anyone worth talking to at least) want that. I'm just saying that if that's what you're after then the feminism movement, which is named after only one gender and has a long history of caring primarily about that gender is not a good way to achieve that sort of non-sectarianism.

                You may feel oppressed

                I don't feel oppressed. As a straight, white male who grew up in Britain in the 80s I'm well aware that I'm one of the least oppressed people alive. I'm also very glad of the work which feminism has done up to now, which has made the world better in general and has allowed me to work alongside some smart and fun women. However, to stop it becoming divisive I think we now need to stop calling ourselves feminists and start saying we're in favour of gender equality.

                There is still some work to be done, paternity leave for example should be good for women who want to continue to work AND good for men who want to raise children, win-win. You could call that a feminist issue if you want but if it's about something which is good for everyone, why would you want it to be labelled as a "women's problem"?

                1. h4rm0ny

                  Re: The biological imperative.

                  >>"Absolutely, we all (or anyone worth talking to at least) want that. I'm just saying that if that's what you're after then the feminism movement, which is named after only one gender and has a long history of caring primarily about that gender is not a good way to achieve that sort of non-sectarianism."

                  Someone claimed that feminism was a derogatory term that some people were applying revisionism to. I showed with historical accuracy that this was not the case. You chose to argue against my post and add your own words into my mouth in doing so. I re-iterated what I'd said, asked you if you were really trying to defend such an absurd position as I countered by contesting what I wrote. You have again, skipped over that, started contesting what I wrote. You seem only to wish to argue against my defending the term against someone who twisted its meaning in a quite plainly obvious way.

                  Feminism remains an important movement for as long as there are injustices which are primarily perpetrated against women. Just read the story you're actually replying to if such injustices are escaping your attention. I can provide a long list of other examples if you wish and you know that I can. It is no more wrong to be a feminist and fight against injustices against women than it is wrong to be a gay rights activist and fight against injustices towards homosexuals, or to be a racial activist and fight against injustices towards Black people. Or similar for any other targeted group.

                  >>I think we now need to stop calling ourselves feminists and start saying we're in favour of gender equality.

                  Femism has ALWAYS had equality as a stated goal. To claim we need to "start saying..." anything of this sort is absurd ignorance. If you have any grasp of the history of feminism then you must know there is no "start". This has always been a core statement of feminism. The "Feminist" name of the movement isn't because we're not in favour of equality, it's because historically and today, most of the adjustments that need to be made have been bringing women up to the same level of opportunity and rights as men. Or are you going to contest that as well?

                  It's your repeated insinuation that to be feminist is to ignore other injustices. This is false and you know it to be false, yet in trying to abolish the term feminism you keep pretending that it is.

                  >>You could call that a feminist issue if you want but if it's about something which is good for everyone, why would you want it to be labelled as a "women's problem"?

                  It's a problem in society that affects people regardless of gender. But if you're genuinely interested in my answer as to why I use the term feminist, as opposed to just trying to attack the term for being exclusionary, then the answer is simple. It's one more front on the battle for social justice that has a long and respected history behind it and it's a cause behind which both men and women can rally. Whether you call yourself a feminist or choose to call yourself a human rights activist, is up to you. But please cease attacking those of us who do call ourselves feminists by implying it's exclusive of championing other causes. And especially cease attacking the supported and plain arguments of those who refute historically inaccurate and hate-filled revisionism which is what you have been doing so far.

                  Feminism is a useful term that is the name for an active political movement that stretches back over a hundred years. I and others call ourselves that because we believe in and work towards equality for women. When that's achieved, come back and tell us the term no longer has meaning. Today, that hasn't happened, so kindly respect our freedom to champion such causes and continue to refer to ourselves by the name of our movement. You know perfectly well that being a feminist does NOT mean excluding other injustices and caring ONLY about women. Would you similarly attack someone from Stonewall when they were debating with a anti-gay bigot and tell them that they shouldn't call their movement a gay rights organization, but a human rights one, even though they were a gay rights movement? Or leap into a conversation between a racist and a black rights activist and keep trying to attack the latter saying they were wrong to talk about Black rights? Show some respect. Feminism has a long and proud history so kindly respect people's right to identify as such without insinuating things about us. Sure, you could abstract every righteous cause on the planet and complain that they should all just be called "Justice" and that any differentiation beyond that implied exclusion. But would it be useful? Would it help? Would it recognize that people fight against the injustices that they encounter in their daily lives or have been on the receiving end of? No.

                  If none of the above reaches you, and at the end of it you don't feel like just respectfully backing off and letting someone shut down bigots who say stupid things, and still want to challenge people for the name of their movement and the areas they are active in; then I can only conclude that your goal here isn't to learn or respect how people self-identify, but only to argue and be right on the Internet.

                  I understand your argument. No further explanation from you is necessary on this. I understand it and am still fine with calling myself a feminist and I still reject insinuations that it means we're excluding people. Re-read the experiences of Jessie Frazelle. Re-read some of the injustices women go through daily in the world today. And if after all that you still object to people taking up the banner of feminism under which we unite to try and oppose those things, then you don't have the respect for the people fighting those battles that you think you have. Because you're attacking them every time you support people who try to turn the word feminist into a term of abuse.

                  1. Seajay#
                    Happy

                    Re: The biological imperative.

                    h4rm0ny, a well-written and fact filled post as always, thank you.

                    Of course I respect your right to identify as a feminist, of course I acknowledge that there are still great injustices in the world against women. I wish you every success in battling them.

                    Personally, I'm going to keep arguing for roughly the same causes as you but from behind a different label.

                    1. h4rm0ny
                      Pint

                      Re: The biological imperative.

                      >>"Personally, I'm going to keep arguing for roughly the same causes as you but from behind a different label."

                      I'm glad you posted a response. And I'm glad we've reached an accord. I do see your point and I do recognize that feminism isn't the only label for fighting for equality under - even sexual equality. I'm very glad to have your support and you have mine also - whether I oppose sexism under the banner of feminism and you oppose it under the banner of, for example, human rights.

                      I post the beer icon of peace. :)

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    At some point you have to think that companies need to pick and choose how people can contact their staff.

    Email and anonymous IRC should probably not be your standard drop-in contact points for workers.

  16. PassiveSmoking
    Unhappy

    Stuff like this makes me feel sick to my stomach. As the socially awkward kid, as well as the kid with the extremely visible disability I got bullied a lot and when it came time to enter the work force I spent years on the scrap heap because nobody would give me a chance.

    I always took solace in the idea that at least groups built of mostly nerdy people were at least accepting of anybody who had enough knowledge or intelligence to fit into the group, regardless of gender, race or disability.

    Between incidents like this and the ongoing clusterfuck that is gamergate I'm feeling pretty disillusioned right now.

    1. Triggerfish

      Don't be, I've worked here and there in verious tech industries, with engineers civil, mechanical, electrical and textile, likewise plenty of IT people both sexes , different races. I never have really encountered any of this shit, don't think any of the people I work with would let it happen. Most people have enough manners to realise this is wrong.

      Just do not tolerate it, I have once encountered one guy new starter who was pretty racist and spouting the BNP party line, I took apart all the crap he come out with in front of everyone, I may have come across as a little angry as well tbh maybe not the best way to deal with it but sentiments were correct.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What people who think they have encountered prejudice in the workplace, and feel its because they are a distinct minority, fail to realise, is that everyone encounters prejudice in the workplace.

      Its ridden with cliques, who you knows, old boy networks, funny handshakes, bosses than dont like women, bosses that dont like men, bosses that like men, or women far too much..

      C'mon. Wake up and smell the coffee,. A job is a precious thing and people will commit any sort of crime or unpleasantness to get and keep one. Most people's jobs (not so much in IT) are pretty ubiquitous. Someone else can walk in and do it as well as you, so hanging with the in crowd is important.

      Is this unfair? Yes, grossly. Get used to it.

      Try to legislate it away and you will simply end up in a total buggers muddle.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Inadequate response from the FBI

    > "The FBI is overwhelmed by reports of this kind of abuse and has simply declared that they can't prosecute because there's no way of establishing geographical jurisdiction

    Dear FBI,

    Firstly, if you're overwhelmed, then a few high-profile, well targeted prosecutions, seeking maximum term prison sentences will have a wonderful deterrent effect, so reducing the number of complaints made.

    Secondly, what is the point of, for example, trying to force Apple to unlock suspects' phones, when you're clearly unwilling to use the tools that you do have in other cases?

    Thirdly: this is *never* going to go away until trolls are prosecuted. You do not have the right to decide which behaviours are acceptable and which aren't. Telling victims to suck it up is not what you are paid to do.

    Fourthly, if you can't find the real identities of a few individuals acting alone, why should we believe you when you claim to be able to find the identities of terrorists working in close-knit cells, with soft support from a wider community?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    NSA knows.

    "... because there's no way of establishing geographical jurisdiction "

    Yeah, right. Just ask NSA, will you? They'll know.

    FBI basically says that they don't bother to do anything, not even ask from another federal organisation. Finding the senders (IP at least) to a single address is totally trivial and geolocating those is also trivial.

    But somehow magically sending an email to someone with a term "bomb" brings FBI to your door in hours.

    It's quite obvious that FBI is cherry picking the task they bother to do and skip the rest. Official list of tasks for FBI is totally irrelevant and it's quite obvious by now.

  19. rnturn

    Complaints?

    "Their single most effective tactic with the people who called up was to laughed hysterically at them when they complained about me,"

    What kind of complaints were being called in? Not wanting someone with ovaries talking about new features at the tech conference? Someone above mentioned that the harassment was coming from individuals in the tech community where the population is assumed to have a higher than average intelligence. Complaints called in to a company because the representative is female are, IMO, data points against that assumption. (I like the laughter idea but I suspect it just enraged the caller(s).)

  20. Alistair

    This is sad.

    I do not know the solution to this issue. And it does seem to be a single issue, and it continues to happen to intelligent, capable, public females, not just in IT. I can only hope that the targets do realize that most of humanity would not condone these things.

    I have spent a long portion of my working career in IT. Of the 38 years I've been eligible to be employed legally, I've been employed for 36 of those, and 30 of them in IT.

    <damn. I guess that makes me an old fart?>

    Over that period of time the general impression I've had is that the vast majority of people in the work force are decent, caring and honest, simply wanting to get paid, get some satisfaction out of knowing they've done a good job, and hoping for, and appreciating some respect. I've worked with rather a large range of individuals, covering rather a lot of combinations of race, gender, sexual orientation and political perspectives.

    As a white male I quite *got* that there is an 'old boy' network in most fields, and that those networks tend to be self-sustaining. I know that I've certainly benefited from being known to those networks. At least in my experience however, it is more 'do you know they can do the job' than it is 'do they golf at the right country club' type networking. Perhaps I'm not seeing the entire picture.

    I've found that those that are good at something tend to put aside personality to get the job at hand done, those that are not able to put aside personality can be a bit petty in general and tend to perceive insult and slight in the simplest of statements, or in every event that occurs around them. These folks are often the source of rather vituperative and negative commentary to or about others in these projects, either in one to one conversations or in moments when the target is not present. Being petty, small minded, and vicious earns one a *lot* less respect from me at the very least, and if it goes too far is likely to be responded to and filed for later reference. I *have* had to pull the three strikes rule out in one particular case, and it went to HR and the person was gone.

    All this said I like to think of myself as a gentleman and believe that courtesy and grace are requirements to ensure that we (humans) can live, work, and enjoy life in confined spaces together, and that this applies to all around us, no matter age, gender, sexuality, skin colour, religion or whatever delineation of the species you choose to add to the list.

    I am not one of those that believe 'that group have their place somewhere else', I honestly believe that all humans are capable of anything they choose to put their mind to, and for the vast majority of what is done in the world there are no 'prerequisites' for the job that eliminate anyone based on gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, religion etc.

    - I'll allow that some jobs do require physical capabilities, and there may be prerequisites to cover those physical capabilities, but gender, skin colour, sexual orientation and religion are in no way related to physical capabilities

    -- what was that? Women generally aren't as strong as men I heard in the back there? You are part of the problem.

    Trolls of this sort are doing bullshit like this because they find someone who has gotten their shit together, worked hard at something they are good at, and excelled at it, to be threatening to their petty, small minded, self centred egos. Since they do not have the guts, the will, or the self-discipline to put their ass in gear and work *hard* at something, they feel compelled to tear down, using either direct or implied violence, those who have acquired some success. It usually is a terrible lack of self confidence, and the feeling that they are anonymous, both in that they will never be noticed and they "have the internet".

    I cannot and would not condone this in my circle of friends and associates or my family. And I would no more condone vigilante witch hunts to drag the trolls through the open internet. Vigilante justice is in no way shape or form justice. Vigilantes don't tend to slow down and look at the best way to solve the problem, they just tend to find the nearest tall tree and long rope.

    In some cases these trolls are simply sad, sad individuals that need to come to grips with the real world, in others they could be in need of a period of incarceration and psychotherapy, in a few other cases they just need to be taught that being an asshole is unacceptable.

    <there is no appropriate icon>

  21. Yugguy

    Lack of consequence

    This is not unsurprising.

    A great deal of the bad in this world, from the sad little feckers that trolled Docker, to practicioners of genocide, comes from the belief that there will be no consequences to their actions. In this case anonymity grants that.

    Consequence to actions is what keeps a lot of people in check, not morals, take that away and see what happens.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like