You talked with everyone involved?

Was everyone asked what their opinion was on this situation? I am willing to bet not even 10 % think it was sexist.

Here is the thing. If they thought it was bad, let alone sexist, why did they do nothing about it last year when the same thing apparently happened last year?

They need people to resign to realize what is happening? More like they are trying to be diplomatic and apologetic because they don't care.

This site lacks anything to do with empathy. They see only their ideas and thoughts as number one. You should know that this site is not evolved enough to understand the point.

Let me do it for you.

What if guy dancers wearing basically nothing got up danced and where sexual gestures to each other.

Most will say they wouldn't care but the right in them would be screaming about the gays.

They did do something.  They changed providers.   Who then backed out on them last minute...

Then they went with the same people who did it last year.... on the condition that everything they did was approved first.

Except some of it wasn't approved like it was supposed to be.  Hence the issue.

Again, the tone they are taking is 100% different from companies who fuck up and don't think they did fuck up.

You're just wrong.  They had an issue with it last year as well... and had stated as much.

Okay. So they went with the same people who did the work last year, and forgot to take care that they don't approve stuff that was the reason they changed providers.

So they were careless. Whatever.

I have drifted a long way from my original point by now. It is not sexist because there is no discrimination. You are not entitled to some male or female dancer on the stage of the organization. The only reason people are even seeing "sexism" here is because they are looking at it with a perspective that deliberately makes them the victim or insults them. Women dance with scanty clothes? That means they think I can't do anything else!

There would have been no argument whatsover if there were only male dancers. Actually maybe these people who are complaining might have complained that there were only male dancers and that it is sexist hence.

I don't understand what your first sentence is trying to say.

Outside that.  You don't seem to know what sexism is or why this is sexist... which probably goes a long way towards your ignorance here.

Once again... it's sexist because it's exclusionary.

It's not that it's sexist towards the dancers.  It's that it's sexist towards the female employees of GDC.

"Put up with women we paid to perform being objectified or lose out on an important networking oppurtunity."

That IS discrimination.

A few memebers mentioned gay male dancers... and yeah if gay guys were dancing shirtless and making out.... the majority internet community would lose their collective shit over it... and most developers would be bitching about it because it made them feel uncomforable during an imporatant networking event.

The reason you drifted away from your original point was because it didnt have any merit to begin with.

I already know why you think it is sexist. There is no proof of exclusion. You are making this up.

The reason why I drifted away from my original point was because of race discussion.

"A few memebers mentioned gay male dancers... and yeah if gay guys were dancing shirtless and making out.... the majority internet community would lose their collective shit over it... and most developers would be bitching about it because it made them feel uncomforable during an imporatant networking event."

OK now. Proof please. Prove it that the female dancers were not just dancing at the GDC. Because all I have seen about it is people complaining about their clothes. Nothing else.

"Put up with women we paid to perform being objectified or lose out on an important networking oppurtunity."

lolwhat. You seriously think that is what was going through the people's mind when they organised the particular event?

So in otherwords... you didn't read the post i linked to where they specifically said those women who were dancing at GDC were paid by the staging company and brought there without company approval like was written in their contract.   No wonder you didn't believe the IGDC was actually sorry about the party and thought it was wrong... you didn't actually bother to look at the evidence.

They were paid to be there, they were paid to dress like that, and they were paid to dance on the bar.

The proof had already been provided.

As for the last part...  you are again missing the point spectacularly.  It doesn't matter what was in their mind when they organized it.  That's the message they sent.

Generally racist people don't mean to be racist.  They actually believe all that ignorant shit they say.

You still have to prove that it results in the exclusion of women. Maybe you are not getting it.

And you still have to prove that the female dancers were comparable the the gay men scenario you provided. I don't think they are. Which is why I kept saying that your comparison is getting overboard when you compared this to meetings in strip clubs.

And no, that is not the message they sent. The person who sends the message knows about it MORE than the person who receives it. Fact.

The person receiving it can have the wrong interpretation, he can misunderstand it, there are many possibilities, so really. The person sending the message knows more about it than anyone else.

Racist people are determined to be racists based on their actions. Here we are not interpreting actions, we are doing something entirely else - trying to see what "message" they are trying to send because obviously having female dancers mean someone is trying to send a message.

Not every action has a message behind it.

He's not saying that the girls were making out.

He's saying that if something happened in that supposedly professional environment that was sexually charged and considered uncomfortable by the majority of male heterosexual attendants, we wouldn't have heard "hey, it's just the beauty of human body" or "you can not watch it if you don't enjoy it".

We would have heard a big uproar of "this doesn't belong to a professional meeting" and "why should they do it there? I was trying to have a good time with coworkers and establish professional contacts"

And no, the people that organized the performance did not do so with the goal of excluding people. They offered eye candy to the majority of the audience and cared squat about what the result was for those would feel excluded or forced into an uncomfortable situation. They should be made accountable for what they failed to consider and the conundrum in which they put some of the attendees even if they are not an actively plotting sexist spectre organization.

Female professionals in the tech field often lament having to cope with working in a boys club. Sometimes more like a frat house, it seems, and they feel excluded and lessened.

I don't see how it's different. It's consistent with the fact that there is a double standard across the board in modern western culture: white racism is bad, full-stop, and non-white racism is an inconvenient truth and thus generally isn't discussed. When it does come up as in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, it is heavily implied that only white racists would get worked up about such silly things when everyone knows that voter intimidation can only mean whites attempting to disenfranchise blacks.

That all assumes a lot of things that may or may not be true. Whatever the racial make up of a country, it isn't evenly dispersed. So if a white kid in a white majority country lives in a predominantly black area and attends a predominantly black school, and he is constantly harassed for being white, it seems pretty myopic to just say, "Eh, cracker doesn't really mean anything." It could mean a lot to him.

There doesn't really seem to be much difference in your saying that it's not harmful for blacks to say racist things to or about whites because it didn't affect you when it happened to you, and guys in this thread saying they don't see the problem with female dancers at this party because it doesn't affect them. It might be true in the main, but your experience isn't everyone else's. I just can't see saying that statistically such and such a group is priviliged, therefore it's not offensive to hurl abuse at them because it can't really harm them. It might be true that there isn't the same kind of harm as experienced by an underpriviliged group, but the practical effect of this is that we end up treating some racism as more tolerable than other kinds instead of equally condemning it all. Offense should be taken whenever offense is intended. Less so when it is given out of ignorance.

Which may or may not be the case here. I'm quite fatigued of all the outrage over sexism in gaming lately, not because it's baseless but because it's so shouty and unproductive. In this particular instance we don't really know a lot and yet, predictably, there's a massive shitstorm over it all over the 'net. The dancers look pretty modestly attired, so it just seems tacky rather than sexist (or even sexy), and I can't really imagine why Brenda Brathwaite would resign over it if she didn't resign last year when they had topless females. But who knows, maybe something else happened or the picture isn't really indicative of the situation. Or maybe it has just reached a breaking point for her.