No. you should talk the same way around everyone. If what you reserve some things to when particular people, or particular types of people are not around, then you, very simply, should not be saying them at all in a workplace environment.

I agree with everything else you said, just that politically incorrect jokes should not be part of the workplace. You are not supposed to act differently because they are women, you are supposed to act differently because you are at work. Fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

Actually she did #4, not #3. #3 would have required her to move from where she was sitting and find an organizer, thus causing her to miss part of the talk. Why should someone have to miss part of the talk because other people are misbehaving?

Also from her blog:

"I had been talking with a developer after lunch in the hall and he told me he had made a joke. He had been looking for some boxes and said aloud that he was looking under the skirt (he had meant a table skirt) in the expo hall. A woman had “given him a look” and/or made a comment after he said this so he responded by saying “it was bare, just the way he liked it” as an innuendo for when women shave off all their pubic hair. I explained that while this could be funny, it was out of context because:

        We were at a tech conference
        There was a job fair going on
        Women historically have felt unwelcome at tech conferences
        PyCon was making a special effort to be welcoming to women
        There were several women’s groups here (PyLadies, Women Who Code, CodeChix, Ada Initiative)
        He was wearing company logos and that meant his actions and words carried on their behalf .much further than his sense of humor ever would.

He disagreed. I urged him to talk to someone at the conference who worked for the same company who was a guy and who would understand this issue and potential for brand/reputation damage. We were able to discuss this because we were in the hallway, not a packed ballroom."

Given the full context of the overall situation at the conference, coupled with that she has likely been dealing with that sort of thing for years, her reaction starts to be clearer, I think.

Whoops - you are right about #2 ... I broke my tailbone recently... drugs must be working :-) For some reason I was thinking that was the tell the organizers in a less public way.

Again, #2 is not something many people are comfortable with. I know that I personally am not.

I would hope that if sponsor attendees are violating the rules of the conference that their employers would be notified. Their actions reflect poorly on the conference itself given that they are representing sponsor companies.

There is simply not reason that she should have had to have done #1, #2, #3, #4, or the #5 that was also given. The proper thing would for the "jokes" to never have been told, which, sadly, is the thing that has been lost in all of this. The behaviour is simply not appropriate for a work environment, doubly so when it is a conference that people pay to attend (and, yes all the people involved in this story probably went there on the company dime, not their own person funds, but that doesn't matter).

What is worse is the reaction of teh internetz and how they responded in, pretty much the manner that she was originally was perturbed about. Those complaining about her being a feminazi, suggesting that she should have just ignored it, etc... are the same people that are the problem to being with.

You don't care about my position, and I don't care about yours. It would seem we are at an impasse.

Her posting on Twitter was not for the people in the audience, it was for the PyCon coordinators.

Nobody probably should have lost their job over this, I'll be sure I never apply at either of those companies.

I was a tech evangelist once, and a student attempted to get me fired for me suggesting, on Usenet, that they do their own homework instead of asking us to do it for them. Not exactly the same thing as this in severity or exposure, but still the same sort of general idea. In my case my company stood behind me over the issue, and I started posting things that were not strictly related to my job via another account.

You are ascribing motivations to her that she did not necessarily have. I have seen nothing that indicates her goal was to shame anyone. Did she handle it poorly? Yes. Should she have sent the image privately if she had to? Yes. Was it enough for her to specify the talk and the general location for the coordinators to find the offenders? Yes.

Had she taken option #2 above the coordinators would have likely contacted the employer to inform them of the action they took and the reason behind it. The employer may have still fired the individual over it. Had that happened, and he had posted what he did, and she had posted what she did, sans picture of him, would the same thing have happened? I suspect it would have to a lesser degree. My feeling, based on everything I have read, is that people are, at the core, upset that she was offended by the jokes, and that she should not have been because boys are boys. Her point, rightfully so, is that those types of jokes do not belong in the workplace. Given the number of years she has probably had to put up with that sort of thing I see this as the straw that broke the camels back.

Did she overreact by posting the picture publicly? Absolutely. Was she wrong to react to it? Absolutely not. Were the people telling jokes wrong to tell them? Absolutely, in that such jokes do not belong in the workplace, ad the conference was an extension of the workplace. Should he have been fired over it? Depends, would the company have fired him for saying the same joke at work?

I would not be comfortable with #2. So you are asking me to do something that I am not comfortable with. My comfort does override the desire of someone else to violate rules. You may be comfortable with option #2, not everyone is.

There is a difference between pointing fingers at other possible people based on something that could be seen as relevant and bringing something that is not relevant to the crime in question.

In the case you cite, were it true that her father molested her and was the father of the child, is there a plausible reason he would have for murdering the child? Sure.

If a person gets raped and you try to defend it because they have slept around or were wearing clothes that were "asking for it" there is no plausible reason for raping the person. For some things to do with rape it winds up coming down to he-said-she-said. In which case the woman's sexual history and choice of clothing still do not enter into it.

Your skirt is too short is not a plausible reason for raping someone, while my father is my child's father could be a reason (getting rid of DNA evidence for example).

I don't agree with her posting the picture. However I also don't see a huge issue with it either. They knowingly and thus intentionally violated the code of conduct for the conference, I find that unacceptable as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but it seems that the outrage should at the very least be equal over both issues.

I have all the options available to me. If someone is breaking the terms (PyCon has a code of conduct that was not being followed, movie theaters ask you to turn off your phone and not talk once the movie starts) then I should be able to chose any of the available options to me, specifically the one that I feel most comfortable with. Why should I have to cater to the person who is knowingly and intentionally violating the rules?

I am pro-defence lawyer. However, if prosecutors are not allowed to bring in the accused backgrounds due to them not being relevant I don't see how it is ok defence lawyers can be able to bring in victims unrelated backgrounds.

You are missing my point, apparently, if this is the environment people are in then your statement of "and women haven't actually felt that way any time in my entire life," is completely false.

Well let's see, how many defense lawyers try to bring in a rap victims background and actions into evidence to justify a rape accusation in the USA?

Or this: "What’s the lasting effect though on two young men being found guilty juvenile court of rape essentially?” Crowley wondered." Who the f*** cares what the lasting effect on the guilty party is for committing rape? Really? Why would anyone care? How about the lasting effect on the victim?

And to go along with that case: "After the sentencing, detectives notified the attorney general’s office of the alleged social media threats, DeWine’s office said. As a result, a 16-year-old girl was charged today with aggravated menacing for allegedly threatening the life of the victim via Twitter, and a 15-year-old was charged with menacing for allegedly threatening bodily harm via Facebook." Great, so you are a victim of rape, the accused are found guilty, and now people are angry at you...

Perhaps you should actually look around you and see what is going on.

"PlayHaven are going to have a tough time hiring skilled workers, especially ones with families, if they're going to terminate their employment over something that EVERYONE is guilty of doing."

Which entirely misses the bigger picture. This is not something that ANYONE should be doing. Just because people are doing it does not make it right or proper.

"She turned something that was private (as in, just a few people around where aware of)"

Private would be between the two people only. As soon as it involved the "few people around" it ceased to be private.

So, if I take offense to something, say people talking in a movie theatre, I could:

1) stay quiet and be annoyed
2) turn around and tell them to stop
3) leave the movie and talk to management, thus missing part of the movie
4) (not available since I turn my phone off) call or tweet or post on the facebook page or something like that about it.

#1 sucks, but that is what I usually do.
#2 I have done once, was not happy about doing it
#3 I would probably never do
#4 I would do if it were practical.

In this case #4 was practical for her.

What they did is arguably against the posted terms of the conference. If it was against the posted terms of the conference it should also be inappropriate for the workplace. Given that the attendees were there on the company dime, and representing their company, they should behave the same as they would at their workplace. If the behaviour is not acceptable at the workplace it should not be acceptable at the conference (regardless of the terms).

She did not overreact. She could have done it in a less public way, but should she have to have missed a portion of the conference to deal with something that should not have been happening to begin with?

She should not have lost her job, and I assume she would win a lawsuit if it comes to that. He should have lost his job, assuming that he would have lost his job for the same behaviour at his workplace.

You started at this with a wrong premise, you arrived at a wrong conclusion.

To be a maze it would need an exit and and an entrance that are connected to one another.

http://xkcd.com/936/

Since when did morality enter into the Free Market? To be fair though, I'll assume for a second that none of the people complaining about the high prices were also complaining about "socialism" during the election. Because if they are not in favoud or the "socialist" policies then they should have zero issue with the market setting the price...