Ah, so Martin Luther King and Gandhi are assholes and douchebags!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Well, if I have to be lumped together with those, well, that's a quite amazing complement and one I'm not sure I deserve, but what the hell!

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job.

Yes it does. I'm yet again going to crank out that PNAS argument that we argued over before. Last time you eventually conceded that the article was valid, yet here you are denying the same facts.

For those of you new to this: they made fake CVs with identical experience and the ones with female names attached were routinely rated as less competent and routinely offered less money. There is no way the women had "less years on the job" because the women and men in the study were all fake and otherwise identical.

I said to her, "Women often say they have trouble with unacceptable male attention." She told me, "They ask for it!" (Exact quote)

Nope, there's no problem at all with generalising what one woman said to 50% of the population. Nosiree, no stereotyping there at all. Anyway, I can duel with anecdotes and find women to say exactly the opposite.

Hell, I've observed exactly the opposite at a computer science.

One female presenter being followed round by a gaggle of lost puppies including one guy who waited for about 10 minutes[*] outside the toilet. Now that's some serious creeper stalking. How was that wanted exactly?

She always dressed in a way that made people respect her.

Oh yes the slutty harlot was dressed in jeans or possibly trousers and a shirt or t-shirt, just like everyone else.

[*] toiled was quite near the buffet, so I had the opportunity to observe him while I was talking to other people. He was still there when I wandered off about 10 minutes later, so he could have waited considerably longer.

What reasoning?

You just made up that ludicrous collection of logical fallacies all by your self. If it's anyone's reasoning therefore then it's yours.

Silicone Valley

That is something *ENTIRELY* different to Silicon Valley.

n the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work

Is this the same silicon valley that has the quite astonishing ageism problem as well? Silicon valley has never been just about the technology.

My ex-employer had a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. Imagine this conversation:

Jim: "Hey, Dave. Where's Mary? She's supposed to be at the status meeting."
Dave: "She's got a cold and couldn't make it."

Result of this conversation: Dave and Jim are fired. According to the employee handbook, Sexual Harassment is defined and includes "Mentioning a coworker in conversation that said coworker is not involved in."

That's got nothing to do with sexual harassment. That's zero tolerance on misnamed, random shit.

Oh yes, must be the feminist conspiracy. I'm sure the rejection has nothing to do with the fact your submission was crap and didn't bother to link to anything at all.

Men also get offered lower salaries.

Not in this case.

http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

As someone who happens to have been born with a penis, if I so much as smile the "wrong" way, I am instantly a creep, marked a sexual predator, fired, sued into oblivion, and my life ruined - all with everyone immediately believing the woman.

Well, that's demonstrably not true: there are many penis equipped humans to whom that doesn't apply. Therefore the problem isnot with having a penis in general but something associated with you (e.g. you work with lunatics or you are a lunatic).

I seem to be perfectly capable of smiling at and talking to many people without being labelled a predator.

As an aside, there's that good looking men can get away with more. Please make that argument, as I've never experienced any of that. It would be nice for someone on the internet to imply I'm a studly, hunky Adonis lookalike.

Women make less than men over their careers because they have babies, and that process requires taking a lot of time off work.

Yep, sexism doesn't exist and any evidence that women with the same qualifications as men are offered lower salaries just doesn't exist. You know, except that PNAS paper, but we'll ignore that becaus it doesn't agree with the "sexism is fake" narrative.

No shorts? What about the sandals, socks pulled up, shorts a t shirt and a huge beard? Banning shorts will exclude me and my fellow unix programmers.

However at least some former booth babes are models that really can't do things other than look good. Since they would not be good in an informational role, they would not be hired

You specifically stated it was "discriminatory against the good looking"? How is it. Looks are uncorrelated with intelligence. Being a model doesn't make one an idiot. There is no discrimination against the good looking, only rules about suitable clothing.

2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and

I'm coming to the conclusion that that is the primary goal of about 78% of the world's company reps. It also explains why their so keen on taking out potential customers to fancy restaurants. I mean suuuuure it might make a sale, but the rep gets a bang up meal and top notch wine as a perk.

The people are attending because it's a security conference, not because of the presence of booth babes[*]. So people aren't paying to see the booth babes, they're there for the security stuff, and the vendors using the booth babes are taking advantage of people's presence there already. Personally I don't feel this is a bad thing, because it will substantially reduce the mental effort not to behave like a slack jawed idiot.

[*] Though I do have a mental image of a fat, balding, guy in a dusty, tatty brown suit who has managed to persuade his company to pay for him to attend for the last 20 years and spends the entire time ogling the booth babes.