> "One of my C-suite executives saw that you had been added to our CRM database, and shared a very troubling and upsetting story with me:

> Back in 2015 at the Black Hat USA security conference in Las Vegas Blizzard had a recruitment booth in the “Career Zone” section of the vendor area. As the name implies, the purpose of the Career Zone is to connect hackers seeking jobs with companies seeking to employ them. My executive (whom I should clarify was not employed with us at the time, but rather was employed as a senior vulnerability researcher at large security consulting firm) approached the Blizzard booth to inquire about open positions; however instead of discussing potential job opportunities with her, the Blizzard recruiters ridiculed her for being a woman. They asked her if she was lost; if her boyfriend brought her to the conference; if she even knew what the conference was about; if she knew was penetration testing was, and how often she got penetrated; and a slew of other extremely inappropriate and wholly unprofessional questions.”

Or just believe the women in the face of credible evidence. The lengths many HN commenters will go to to cast FUD upon any accusation of sexism in the industry is a pretty clear indicator of how much sexism is in the industry.

"Or just believe the women in the face of credible evidence."

? But we just found that we can't do that.

The top commenter has basically turned the story upside down, with the fairly relevant information (i.e. evidence) that Ms. Mitchell was wearing a t-shirt with overtly sexual language - to which the Blizzard dorks merely responded directly to.

Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism.

This information was not fully reported in the story and it materially changes the situation.

The story was presented as: "Woman Faced Sexual Harassment"

... but really it's something much more nuanced: "Woman Extolling Sexual Language, Is Responded To In Those Same Terms, Interprets Actions as Harassing"

The statements on her t-shirt, if correct (i.e. both sides) are clearly 'sexually charged language' that, if worn in any professional context, especially by a man, would have them immediately sidelined. Shamed, at minimum.

So in this case, it's a good thing that we 'didn't believe the story' because it turned out to be something more complicated.

I'm always immediately sympathetic to people in these scenarios ... but invariably I learn more, and that there is always considerably more nuance than reported, to the point wherein the authors of the story are effectively misrepresenting reality, and I become much less likely to accept anything reported just 'at face value' - which is frankly not good for 'the movement'.

I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes.

Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"?

> Blizzard guys met her at her level, with equal levels of dubious professionalism.

This is wildly charitable to blizzard guys. She's wearing a punny tshirt and asking about a job. They're responding by asking how often she's been penetrated, and whether she knows literally anything about csec. She isn't fucking hitting on them at a bar, and they're there as professionals looking to fucking hire people.

I don't think this really adds nuance. It attempts to excuse unprofessional (maybe can be interpreted as questionably okay in this context) and sexist (not okay, fucking period) actions. They're getting paid by Blizzard to be there. You don't say shit like that and expect to have a job the next day, regardless of the context.

> I think the 'large central mass' of regular people are really, really open to change and looking at things differently, and in hearing legit stories, but as soon as they're misrepresented, the window of general empathy closes.

Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters makes people excuse unacceptable, unprofessional and downright wrong language allows otherwise "open" people to say "well I guess we'll never know." which preserves the status quo.

"Please describe to me how your argument doesn't boil down to "she deserved it because of what she was wearing"?"

A person, whatever they are wearing, is not overly engaging in sexualized interaction.

But if someone writes something overtly sexual on their t-shirt, they are engaging in a communication.

That someone responded to the t-shirt shouldn't be surprising, even if it's unprofessional.

---

"I don't think it adds nuance"

It adds nuance because the men, engaging in discussion about 'penetration' without incitement, is something clearly different then the men commenting on the pun that is on another person's shirt.

---

"Which is why FUD still works, because muddying the waters "

It's not muddying the waters if you accept that the woman initiated a level of discourse by her own accord.

Consider what would happen if one of your male co-workers wore a t-shirt with an overtly crude, sexual double-etendre about 'penetration' to the office?

"Have you ever been PENETRATED? (wink wink!)"

Surely you'd be outraged that this would be exactly the kind of 'frat boy' culture you're condemning.

I'm certain that I would be told to 'change shirts' immediately, at least at my office.

So how do we then contemplate that a women, who wears such a is not directly engaging in this bad behaviour?

If you wear a t-shirt that says: "Suck My Banana!" to the office, and someone says to you "Ok, I'll Suck Your Banana!" - then who is really 'at fault' of being crude and sexist?

I don't think that Banana has much of a legitimate claim.

> she deserved it because of what she was wearing

I see their argument being more like she initiated the tone of the interaction by her choice of wording on her clothing?

I thought that was a pretty big part of what we all learned during the #metoo movement - the incentives to lie are pretty weak for victims since they end up facing waves of harassment over even legitimate claims.

Considering Blizzard is currently being sued by the state of California for exactly the same discriminatory behavior it's same to assume that grain of salt has long since dissolved into this soup of illegal bullshit that Blizzard is being sued for.