The original presentation was not "nothing but slides of vaginas for visual aids". It was a normal tech presentation, but with LOLCAT FAIL replaced by ugly porn stars, and EPIC WIN replaced by pretty porn stars.

If the same presentation were made, but with LOLCAT FAIL -> ugly man in seductive pose, EPIC WIN -> muscled man, I doubt many men would be offended. I certainly would not be.

In my opinion, women (at least the ones who complain about such things) are simply less tolerant of edgy material than most hackers.

Also, the original presentation showed no full nudity. I don't think your comparison to a "stack of penises" is apt.

But it's not really about the degree of nudity, but the degree of uncomfortableness felt by the audience. That's what DHH, the presenter, and you are getting wrong. You are arguing about the wrong thing. It's not so much about the content of the slides, but how that content made that lone woman feel in a room full of men.

My main point is that most men (particularly most hacker men) would probably not have chosen to be offended under the same circumstances. I certainly would not have. I believe the mainstream of hacker man is simply very tolerant of differences.

Several people here and elsewhere have come up with "what if the shoe were on the other foot" examples (stacks of penises, breastfeeding, images of surgery, etc). In each case, I had varying reactions from "clever" to "confusing" to "meh" (1). In no case would I choose to be offended.

(1) I laughed at "Deliver like a Birth Mother." I'd probably be confused by images of good and bad breastfeeding technique.

>> would probably not have chosen to be offended under the same circumstances.

It is easy not to be offended when you are in the majority!

Let's try yet another empathy experiment--although I suspect empathy cannot be taught. Imagine going to a professional conference where you are the minority. For example, if you're white, imagine everyone else is black or vice versa. Now imagine the presentation is filled with slides portraying your race in a demeaning or comical way.

When you say this made you uncomfortable, the community leaders say "get over it."

How welcome do you feel? Are you going to tell me with a straight face your answer would be "very welcome!"

Or how about I'm an academic, and also a political conservative/libertarian. That's an extreme minority.

If someone includes an anti-conservative joke on a slide (which has happened), I'm not offended. I have better things to worry about than bad (and sometimes good, but offensive) jokes in a presentation.

Rather than switch to a different example that is not outwardly visible nor nearly so divisive, please answer the original question. Do you feel "very welcome" in the given scenario?

I switched to that example because it is real. But no, I don't think I'd be offended by a racist joke in a set of slides. For instance, comparing one database to a short white basketball player and another database to Shaq?

In this case, there isn't even a sexist joke. The slides say nothing in particular about women. All they did was compare one database to a fat woman dressed as wonder woman and another to a beautiful woman in a bikini. What statement does this make about women?

"What statement does this make about women?"

Your example implies that white people are bad at basketball, just as the slides imply that fat women are unattractive. But implicitly, the standard of comparison makes a statement, too. It makes the statement that women are sex objects who should be judged only on their most superficial characteristics. Men can be judged on their ability to play basketball but when it comes to women, the only standard of value is how sexually attractive they are.

"I'm sure a metaphor could be worked in that would fit a stack of penises."

Frankly (as a man) I wouldn't be offended.

"they aren't considering what it would've been like if the presentation had contained something that extremely marginalized them "

You can't "marginalize" me unless I choose to feel marginalized by what you say. I'll be damned if I give you that kind of power over me.

If I thought the presentation was full of shit, I'd just walk out. I am sure a decent tech conference would have better presentations elsewhere.

One thing I wouldn't do is whine endlessly about it because one of my "identities" got hurt. It is a free country and I am fine with the right of free speech sometimes causing me "offense".

This is the Danish cartoons on a smaller scale. It is all right to "offend" 6th century "prophets" (and their followers). It is all right to "offend" the political correctness of the day. That is what free speech means. You don't think a particular instance is appropriate, just walk away.

All we need are mobs burning DHH in effigy and destroying public property and then we can all go back to our normal lives.

This misses the point of the debate though. The original blogger didn't whine about it or leave, she just mentioned it was a little out of place to see in a conference presentation. That's nothing like the Danish Cartoon controversy, what upset a few folks however was the response of the Rails leadership in jumping to defend the presenter and implying that presentations that offend more people should be the order of the day at Rails conferences.

How the hell do you build a community by fostering a culture that goes out of its way to try and alienate people to gain a few high fives and back pats by the leaders?

"she just mentioned it was a little out of place"

I have the impression the reaction was much more that "it was a little out of place". Anyway I am not objecting to people's feeling whatever they felt. I am objecting to demands that the presenter apologize, and claims that DHH (and others) did something morally wrong/unspeakably evil. I hate one set of people demanding another set of people behave in pre approved ways just because someone "felt offended".

"How the hell do you build a community by fostering a culture that goes out of its way to try and alienate people to gain a few high fives and back pats by the leaders?"

I guess the assumption here is that either the presenter or the "leaders" see any value in "building a community by fostering a culture" through political correctness and "inclusiveness".

DHH has mentioned very clearly he writes Rails for himself and could care less if any one else used Rails. Given that, why should he confine his thought and speech to "what builds community" (however that is defined) ?

I have no objections if people are offended. That is their choice. Just don't tell other people that they should change their views or speak or not speak in specific fashion

>> "Then see what the community has to say about that presentation."

I suspect most men would just laugh if they saw pictures of penises. But it's Apples and Oranges. Calling the slides in the presentation 'porn' is false advertising. It's some scantily clad women.

A better analogy IMHO would be a women giving a talk, that includes makeup+lingerie in it as metaphors etc. But I don't think most men would feel offended by that.

So agreed that makeup+lingerie (Or Shopping?) for the average female stereotype is equivalent to the average male stereotype of thinking about scantily-clad women.

Now if you went to a industry conference attended by 200 women and yourself and all the analogies were about "Women" stuff. Would you leave the conference thinking that the industry was equally representative and welcoming of males than females?

For me thats the important question, not if it offended you or not.

>> " Would you leave the conference thinking that the industry was equally representative and welcoming of males than females?"

No. I'd recognize that most people were women, and women like 'Women stuff'. :/

You gotta cater to the majority.