Or because of how you phrase things, maybe. I won't rule out that I'm prejudiced -- it's all but a certainty that I am, to some extent or another. But despite that, I don't normally think women are asking me for money on the internet.
I'm sorry for your troubles. But being confronted, in person, with a situation that you think is domestic slavery and being asked on the internet for money by a stranger are two different things.
> I think your advice falls into the "much easier to say (from a great distance) than do" category.
What of it? You still don't allow people to remain in a state of slavery when it is within your power to free them with just a phone call to the police. It doesn't have to be easy to do to be unacceptable not to do.
"Lost his job." Boo hoo, he's still insanely rich, and could probably get a job anywhere less progressive and public than Mozilla. Also, no public indication that he was compelled to leave, although I'll grant you there's a better than even chance that that was the case.
"Forced to make a tearful apology" Rather say that he made a tearful apology, because he regretted his wrong action and felt apologetic. Or, if you have access to some sort of privileged information and actually know that he was forced, I've got another rejoinder: forced to apologize!? No! The humanity.
When it comes to reactionary beliefs, there is a significant contingent on this site that believes one ought to be able to hold them publically with no consequences in any other space. This happened with that Mozilla CEO that resigned, the scientist who wore the shirt with scantily clad women on it, and a number of other situations where the privileged paid nominal costs for their mistakes. It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free.
I do not know the man's writings. There are many links on that page to things he wrote. So this is the most informative link I am likely to be able to provide.
As for why not read his writings: why not read the writing of the timecube guy, or those of reactionary christian authors? Because I try not to waste my time on idiotic polemic.
Google is helpful here. There are plenty of articles that have been written about him (speaking as someone else who hadn't heard of him until today). This is the one I'm reading right now: http://www.thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis/
It really depends on what her views on women in technology are. If she's pro, then I imagine a conference explicitly trying to ban that category would have little traction, so it hardly matters. If she's con, then yea, sure, ban her from speaking.