Sarah Lacy is a horrible journalist who attempts to flirt with her interview subjects. Call it reverse sexism, working with what she has to even the playing field, or whatever you want, but there was nto organized hoax to shame Sarah Lacy.

She just came unprepared, dropped the ball, tried to make too much of the interview about herself, and expected Mark to finish her sentences for her. For you to call that sexism means you’re grasping at straws. I don’t think Lacy is a harlot, bimbo, or anything else. I just think she’s unprofessional and extremely self-centered. Hers is not a new style of journalism. It is trite and desperate self-promotion.

And it doesn’t go over well with audiences.

Thank-you for illustrating my point nicely. I promise I didn’t make up your post to demonstrate the gendered borders of of the tech world and how anyone violating the code by mocking this power structure gets warned.

Do you even read my blog?
Try reading Let’s Get Low Low Low for a primer on what sexism IS.
Sexism is about power. It is impossible for reverse sexism to exist. To be clear, there is never sexism against men.

Gender is only something to see past because it serves you, don’t you see that honey?

Further, even mainstream (read manly) tech pages have an entirely different take than you. Techcrunch called the entire coverage a “witch burning”:

What in the world drove these “journalists” to write this nonsense? Jealously over the fact that they weren’t on stage, or over Lacy’s new book? Perhaps they just got caught up in the fun of a witch burning. But whatever drove them to write those articles, it certainly wasn’t journalism. Nor was it professional. And, worst of all, it wasn’t accurate.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/10/the-nuclear-disaster-at-sxsw-was-nothing-more-than-a-witch-burning/

The only sexist in this whole story is you. If you can’t see past Sarah and Mark’s genders to get to the real story, which is burningly obvious, then why is the Walrus letting you damage its brand?