|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A Joke Leads to Termination
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I thought their behaviour was both against conference policy and demonstrated a crap attitude towards women.
I'm trying to get through to my thick skull but still can't understand - why was it a crap attitude to women exactly? I don't see that it is sexist, and surely men can be just as offended by a 'dirty' joke.
ISTM, you are viewing this incident in isolation and with naïveté. Given the history of the poor treatment of women in the workplace, it is understandable to view the joke as more threatening or offensive to women than men.
That some men might also find the joke offensive reinforces the conference rules and Adria's reaction.
(As Barnabas62 said better than I.)
Nope, I am viewing it through experience in working in both male and female dominated environments. It would be just as likely for a joke like this to be said in either workplace. There seems to be a "think of the poor oppressed women" attitude on this thread which to my mind is far more damaging than a mildly crude joke. If a crude joke is inappropriate for a workplace then that's that. It doesn't matter whether it's male dominated or female dominated.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
If a crude joke is inappropriate for a workplace then that's that. It doesn't matter whether it's male dominated or female dominated.
Crude jokes are inappropriate for a workplace, simply because so many people (men and women) find them offensive. A crude joke as part of a stand-up comedy routine is different -- I have to choose to see the comedy routine one way or another. If I don't like it, I don't have to go to the show or turn on the TV. But when it's at work, if I don't like it, tolerating offensive jokes becomes a condition of employment. That's wrong.
It's also wrong because crude jokes, pornographic pictures, and the like are often used to let women know that they are not welcome in the workplace. They set the boundaries of the community, and communicate the message, "You are not wanted here." As a result, even if someone would find the same joke inoffensive elsewhere, the use of the joke in the workplace may well make it offensive there.
It's not, "Think of the poor delicate women." I'm a woman. I'm not offended by a picture of women's breasts. I would be offended if a co-worker included pictures of women's breasts in a slide deck for a presentation about payroll software. The breasts wouldn't be the problem. The attitude of the person including them in the slide deck would be the problem.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In effect by exceeding one set of normal boundaries as a conference presenter she did not advance the good case she wanted to advance for allowing women to set their own boundaries as Josephine said. Rather, I think she confused the harrassment boundary issue by being confused herself about a different boundary issue.
Thank you for this, Barnabas62. I found your post extremely clear and helpful. I think it may help me clarify my mixed and perhaps a little muddy thinking about what happened at PyCon.
quote:
That being said, nothing justifies the appalling dogpile she suffered after the photo tweet. She sure didn't deserve that. That I guess brings in a third potential boundary issue; what is socially acceptable netiquette?
Standards of behavior on the Internet are so low that I won't usually read comments on news sites or public blogs; I only read comments on technical blogs where the comments are closely moderated (or where the particular subject matter doesn't attract abusive commenters). Comments are frequently so vile and abusive that I just can't stand it.
But apparently in some areas of society, they are considered acceptable. I don't like it. But I don't know how to change it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Standards of behavior on the Internet are so low that I won't usually read comments on news sites or public blogs; I only read comments on technical blogs where the comments are closely moderated (or where the particular subject matter doesn't attract abusive commenters). Comments are frequently so vile and abusive that I just can't stand it.
No arguments there. Just reading through the comments on your average YouTube video is enough to lose your faith in humanity. Although, there is a British comedian (Adam Buxton) who's managed to make a whole tv show out of reading out people's YouTube music video comments, and it's pretty funny.
I think one of the best recent developments is people actually getting prosecuted and disciplined for twitter posts etc. I don't know if you ever saw this either?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's also wrong because crude jokes, pornographic pictures, and the like are often used to let women know that they are not welcome in the workplace. They set the boundaries of the community, and communicate the message, "You are not wanted here." As a result, even if someone would find the same joke inoffensive elsewhere, the use of the joke in the workplace may well make it offensive there.
But surely the boundaries being set are between people who are OK with crude jokes and people who aren't. Why is a crude joke specifically anti-women?
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I also think that Adria Richards' behaviour may be criticised on the grounds of a completely different boundary issue. Whether legally binding or not (and in some circumstances of extreme cost or inconvenience lawyers might get invoked) when you agree to present in a conference, you agree to abide by the conditions laid down by the conference organisers. You have a responsibility to co-operate with the terms of the simple contract with them for as long as you continue to agree to take part. That's a normal boundary condition, and in this case on the specific issue of sexual harrassment and its prevention, there was a good policy already in place. Co-operation with the organisers in this case means simply reporting facts related to a breach to them and leaving them to sort it out. So far as personal interractions are concerned, Adria would have been entirely justified in also letting those two guys know exactly what she thought of their behaviour. If I'd been there and heard it, I might well have got in first. I thought their behaviour was both against conference policy and demonstrated a crap attitude towards women. They crossed two boundaries themselves.
But from the evidence in view, Adria Richards also crossed the simple contract boundaries in place between presenters and organisers. That's got nothing to do with her gender. Personally, I'd be saying the same things about the same behaviour by a man. The formal judgments about acceptable conference behaviour were not up to her as either a presenter or attender.
Except Ms. Richards did report the breach to PyCon organizers and let them sort it out. She didn't tell the offenders they had to leave the presentation. That was done by PyCon personnel. The only "boundaries" she crossed was not adhering to the (unwritten, as near as I can tell) code of secrecy guys "demonstrat[ing] a crap attitude towards women" usually rely on to shield themselves from accountability.
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
There seems to be a "think of the poor oppressed women" attitude on this thread which to my mind is far more damaging than a mildly crude joke.
This is the Catch-22 of enforcing anti-harassment policies; the idea that enforcing a policy against harassing women/ethnic minorities/religious minorities/whatever implies some kind of inferiority on the part of whoever's being harassed. It's typically an excuse used to turn a blind eye to harassment.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quantpole
I think it's because the vulnerabilities to attack are not the same. Men are much less likely to be sexually attacked than women are, so there's a sort of skewness about what is "just funny really" and that which gives a proper "cause for concern".
Personally, I've changed on this issue over the years. I can still laugh at humour which has a sexual edge to it, but I'm aware, as someone else put it, of different settings and different experiences. I think it is a part of changing the culture that we get into our heads the simple idea that, when you think of it, a good deal of what passes for sexual humour is not just funny.
Which doesn't mean that sex between consenting adults can't sometimes be both gloriously and ingloriously funny! I just think it's worth being more careful about considering the old "there's a time and a place" question and realising we might need some revised social boundaries about that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Croesos
I suppose you can see a code of secrecy, if you like. In this case I don't see sticking to what I'd regard as a normal business relationship as reinforcing any code of secrecy. But YMMV.
Putting my ex-presenter's hat on, if I had very strong remaining concerns about what had happened, then I'd talk to the organisers first about how policies and practices might be strengthened in the future. What I'd want to do is give them responsibility within the context of event for whatever additional steps they might want to take. That's the way you preserve good will. After all, it's their show. That's how you show respect for people you want to work with again. And that's why I wouldn't have taken the additional publicity step which backfired. Not because I think this stuff shouldn't be more out in the open.
I suppose one person's perceived freedom is another's unilateral action. Personally, I tend to go with making and maintaining allies and co-operative approaches. It may be slower, but I think it's surer.
[ 02. April 2013, 14:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Putting my ex-presenter's hat on, if I had very strong remaining concerns about what had happened, then I'd talk to the organisers first about how policies and practices might be strengthened in the future. What I'd want to do is give them responsibility within the context of event for whatever additional steps they might want to take.
Just out of curiosity, what's the problem with asking event organizers to enforce the existing policies, which is what Ms. Richards did? Future changes are all well and good, but if present policy isn't being enforced why would future policy changes make any difference?
It also seems a bit ironic to take the position that Twitter is an inappropriate mode of communication at an IT conference.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
But surely the boundaries being set are between people who are OK with crude jokes and people who aren't. Why is a crude joke specifically anti-women?
For the same reason that a political cartoon showing a noose is specifically anti-black: historical context.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except Ms. Richards did report the breach to PyCon organizers and let them sort it out. She didn't tell the offenders they had to leave the presentation. That was done by PyCon personnel. The only "boundaries" she crossed was not adhering to the (unwritten, as near as I can tell) code of secrecy guys "demonstrat[ing] a crap attitude towards women" usually rely on to shield themselves from accountability.
She told the event organisers as part of publicly shaming the guys. If she'd told the event organisers privately, and only done any public shaming if and only if the event organisers didn't respond appropriately in a reasonable amount of time, then I'd have a lot more sympathy.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose one person's perceived freedom is another's unilateral action. Personally, I tend to go with making and maintaining allies and co-operative approaches. It may be slower, but I think it's surer.
The problem is that, historically, the patient, cooperative approach (which is my preference, too) has been anything but sure. Rights have never been extended beyond the current privileged groups without the efforts of rabble-rousers who were willing to step outside the norms enforced by the privileged groups. I don't like that fact. But it seems to be true.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
She told the event organisers as part of publicly shaming the guys. If she'd told the event organisers privately, and only done any public shaming if and only if the event organisers didn't respond appropriately in a reasonable amount of time, then I'd have a lot more sympathy.
Once again, I'm not sure why such a strict code of secrecy is appropriate here. Why is Ms. Richards obligated to protect the confidentiality of these two idiots? A lot of the commentary I've read elsewhere seems to give this unwritten omertà a higher priority than enforcing the conference's anti-harassment policies.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except Ms. Richards did report the breach to PyCon organizers and let them sort it out.
An email to the organizers saying "these guys are inappropriate" is reporting the breach.
Sending that same message to 12,000 people in the wider tech community is different.
(And I think we can predict what would have happened if she had sent the email instead PyCon personnel would have responded in the same way, pulled the men out of the session and talked to them, as they did. Dongle Man would have apologized, as he did, and there would be no story.
I suppose you could argue that, faced with this private censure, many men would laugh it off as the over-sensitivity of an uppity woman, and would carry on telling inappropriate jokes, whereas a day in the stocks might sort them out, and so the public shaming is necessary to reform the culture. This seems to be something like Ms. Richards's reasons for complaining in such a public manner. I can understand this line of thought - I just think it's wrong.)
quote:
The only "boundaries" she crossed was not adhering to the (unwritten, as near as I can tell) code of secrecy guys "demonstrat[ing] a crap attitude towards women" usually rely on to shield themselves from accountability.
It's not a "code of secrecy," it's an entirely normal part of the code of civilized human behavior. If your neighbour does something to offend you, your first action is not to paste his picture on lamp posts around the neighbourhood.
The only problem with what Ms. Richards did was that she grabbed a stack of photos and parcel tape as her first resort.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Croesos
Nothing wrong with exhorting stronger application of the conference rules, if that's what Adria thought the problem is. It still doesn't justify immediate unilateral action in my book. Who's to say that detailed discussion may not change her mind as well as the organisers?
BTW, no presenter makes friends with conference organisers by changing a presentation late on in order to make a conference-contentious critical point that way either. No matter how tempting that might be, that's also a form of unilateral action. Also better to talk about it first.
So far as Twitter use is concerned, you're certainly right about one thing. It wasn't one of the options when I was doing some occasional presentations in the 80's and 90's. It just seems to me to give presenters a freedom to act unilaterally which they may use wisely or unwisely in view of their general obligations to the conference.
We can agree, I think, that it was unilateral public action in advance of any resolution of any contentious issue by discussion with the organisers.
Does that mean that, by avoiding unilateral action, the moment would have passed? A publicity opportunity to advance a cause would have been missed? And is that more important in this case than the value of a steadier approach?
We may never know, Croesos. From my perspective we're talking about two different sorts of approaches. I'd still back concerted action against unilateral action, and particularly in this kind of situation where presenters have obligations to the organisers. Or always used to, in the world of conference presentations I knew 20 something years ago.
[ 02. April 2013, 15:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The only problem with what Ms. Richards did was that she grabbed a stack of photos and parcel tape as her first resort.
This is an accurate description of what happened only if you view this incident in complete isolation from the realities of sexism in that industry.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
But surely the boundaries being set are between people who are OK with crude jokes and people who aren't. Why is a crude joke specifically anti-women?
For the same reason that a political cartoon showing a noose is specifically anti-black: historical context.
I do not recognise the similarity. Men and women regularly both make crude jokes. A political cartoon showing a noose is not a common occurrence and would only ever be used in racist connotations.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And I think we can predict what would have happened if she had sent the email instead PyCon personnel would have responded in the same way, pulled the men out of the session and talked to them, as they did. Dongle Man would have apologized, as he did, and there would be no story.
That's working from the rather dubious assumption that PyCon monitors its e-mail feed as closely as it does Twitter. It's my understanding that's not usually the case for these kinds of events.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing wrong with exhorting stronger application of the conference rules, if that's what Adria thought the problem is. It still doesn't justify immediate unilateral action in my book.
How, exactly, does someone file a multilateral complaint? Are you suggesting that Ms. Richards needed to have assembled some sort of ad hoc committee before reporting the incident to the PyCon organizers? That seems ridiculously cumbersome.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose one person's perceived freedom is another's unilateral action. Personally, I tend to go with making and maintaining allies and co-operative approaches. It may be slower, but I think it's surer.
The problem is that, historically, the patient, cooperative approach (which is my preference, too) has been anything but sure. Rights have never been extended beyond the current privileged groups without the efforts of rabble-rousers who were willing to step outside the norms enforced by the privileged groups. I don't like that fact. But it seems to be true.
Well, I'm just this old guy, you know, maybe with some old-fashioned ideas ...
Behind all of that, which is a kind of "what is effective" question there is still another crucial question.
What is right?
Let me concede, for the moment, that the patient approach has proven to be ineffective and stronger unilateral action is necessary.
Is that in itself sufficient to justify setting aside the normal obligations to conference organisers in this case? I think it would only be so if you were convinced that you had been mistaken to agree to take part in this conference, that the organisers, far from being potentially part of the solution (or at least neutral) were actually part of the problem?
How would you become convinced of that? Was the "Money Shot" presentation response sufficiently convincing? Then the right thing to do would be to withdraw as a presenter. If you still go, purely as a conference delegate, and Tweet from within about the trash talk, the situation is different. You are subject only to the constraints on delegates.
But suppose you were unsure; you had some doubts. But you still decided to attend as a presenter. Then you turn up with your presenter's obligations intact. Then the right thing to do was to pursue the trash talk as a further test case of the organisation and see where that got you in your judgment of the organisers.
The wrong thing to do under either set of circumstances is surely to turn up as a presenter, then use the conference for unilateral publicity purposes without talking it through. However justifiable the cause, that's a wrong in my book.
I'm sure you can see the difference.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nothing wrong with exhorting stronger application of the conference rules, if that's what Adria thought the problem is. It still doesn't justify immediate unilateral action in my book.
How, exactly, does someone file a multilateral complaint? Are you suggesting that Ms. Richards needed to have assembled some sort of ad hoc committee before reporting the incident to the PyCon organizers? That seems ridiculously cumbersome.
That seems a strange misinterpretation of my remarks. I'm saying "voice your concerns with the organisers" as would be normal for any presenter. And recognise you might not be able to complete discussions all that quickly. Flag the issue for an in depth discussion if you think it warrants it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
It's also wrong because crude jokes, pornographic pictures, and the like are often used to let women know that they are not welcome in the workplace. They set the boundaries of the community, and communicate the message, "You are not wanted here." As a result, even if someone would find the same joke inoffensive elsewhere, the use of the joke in the workplace may well make it offensive there.
But surely the boundaries being set are between people who are OK with crude jokes and people who aren't. Why is a crude joke specifically anti-women?
Of course it's not. But it just seems to be common sense to restrict your sense of humor when you're not sure of your audience. I'm friends with two of my female co-workers, and can say just about anything in front of them, but when other people are around in the workplace I don't. Apart from any consideration of hostile work environment or harassment, it's just polite to refrain from being gross in front of people who might be offended.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Perhaps one point of clarification (which seems obvious to me, but may not be to everyone). A conference delegate is a customer of the conference. A presenter is a part-time employee of the conference. So all actions associated with the conference (scope of talk, preparation, advance lodging of presentation, presentation itself, any follow up required) are normally on the basis of the particular employee-employer relationship in place. The exact nature of that relationship may have been spelled out only sparingly, or in some detail. But in principle that is the difference between a delegate and a presenter.
I'm not sure what the contract models or case law look like in the US. So my opinion is based on a general appreciation from UK experience of the typical employer-employee obligations on conference organisers and presenters. In general, as well as his or her own presentation, the presenter normally has some obligations to safeguard the whole event (e.g. fitting in with the theme, accepting the general rules and ethos, keeping to time and script, etc,).
There can be, as always, a lot of devil in the detail, but I'd be surprised if the principles were all that different in the US.
[FWIW, my own experiences were gained as a result of my organisation pioneering a new approach to a well known management problem and there was a deal of outside interest in what we were doing. I'd been a project manager and also became the first live director of the unit responsible for implementing and managing the new approach. I talked at some public sector conferences and a couple of commercial conferences. I didn't get paid, but my organisation did and my conduct at the conferences was covered by simple contracts. As I say, the experience was gained over 20 years ago, in a UK context.)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps one point of clarification (which seems obvious to me, but may not be to everyone). A conference delegate is a customer of the conference. A presenter is a part-time employee of the conference. So all actions associated with the conference (scope of talk, preparation, advance lodging of presentation, presentation itself, any follow up required) are normally on the basis of the particular employee-employer relationship in place.
And Adria Richards, sitting in the audience at someone else's presentation, falls into which category?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In the UK context I know, you're still covered by the wider obligations as a presenter (part time employee) for the duration of the conference (which would include follow up).
To give an obvious example, I used to regard other presenters as part of the conference team. If they did something I thought was inappropriate or in error, I'd try to find time to talk to them, rather than get involved in some form of delegate-critique. I reckoned I owed them and the conference that.
For reasons like that (and lots of others) I think you modify your conduct. Whether that is a stated or implied-by-ethos contractual obligation would probably depend on the detail.
From my POV, it would be a normal courtesy to behave that way. You don't shaft a fellow team member, even if tempted. Regardless of what the contract letter says.
So far as audience misconduct is concerned, I reckon you behave as a contract employee first of all. Which certainly leaves you free to point out to a delegate any breach of rules you see, and tell them it will get reported to the conference management. That way you recognise some responsibility to the conference but also that you are not the disciplinary authority.
[added last para for completeness]
[ 02. April 2013, 18:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the UK context I know, you're still covered by the wider obligations as a presenter (part time employee) for the duration of the conference (which would include follow up).
Except that nothing I've seen so far indicates Ms. Richards was a presenter at PyCon. The only connection I've been able to determine, other than her attendance, is that her employer (SendGrid) was one of the sponsors of the event and that she volunteered at the Young Coders Workshop. That seems like a pretty slim reed to classify her as a "presenter", beholden to guarding PyCon's secrets and waiving any power to file a complaint.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why is Ms. Richards obligated to protect the confidentiality of these two idiots?
Mainly because I don't think a dongle joke is all that bad. If I were at a conference and made a stupid remark to someone I knew, I'd be pretty miffed if someone overheard me and tried to rile the mob against me. A quiet word (either by the person who overheard, or by the conference organisers if she doesn't want to initiate conflict) is a proportional response.
If he'd said something explicitly sexist rather than just crude (something like "Why are there so many women here, does python support 'import ironingboard' now?"), but still said it to the guy next to him, that's the next step up in badness. I'd probably not feel as much sympathy for such a person being named-and-shamed.
If he'd been talking to a group of people he didn't know, or he was a speaker, and then he made a comment of either type (crude or sexist), that's fair game. The comments are explicitly public, so a public response is fair enough.
The other reason I think she acted in the wrong is based on my impression that she set out to create a stir. She's tweeted dick references herself in the past. I think that tweet is a good parallel, because it happened on a public forum (Twitter) but as a private comment to someone who obviously found some humour in it. Why is she OK posting that kind of thing herself then getting upset when someone makes a joke on a similar level?
I get the need to make a welcoming culture. That's why letting the guys in question know (via the event staff if she wanted) that people might take what they were saying differently would be appropriate. Public shaming just seems disproportional here.
Amorya
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
I get the need to make a welcoming culture.
This makes it sound like the problem is that the IT world is vaguely indifferent toward women. No, it is openly and sometimes viciously hostile toward women as witnessed by the online response to this incident. We really can't cut that off and consider it separately, because it is the context in which she did the things she did. It comes before as well as after, just to different women.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
You consider internet trolls to be part of the same culture as the professional IT world? Trolls are bullies who will use anything they can to get a response. They are sexist, racist, ageist, xenophobic etc and generally despicable whose aim is to humiliate and upset. I'd imagine that people who work in IT would be rather offended to be compared to internet trolls.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
You consider internet trolls to be part of the same culture as the professional IT world?
They can't all be EMTs. Nor is it likely that Ms. Richards somehow offended badminton fans in an as-yet undisclosed but hilariously coincidentally timed incident.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Croesos
Thanks for the clarification. In a sense you make my point for me, because while I was being specific about the general case, I wasn't being specific enough about the specific case. Here are some bits from Amanda Blum
quote:
Adria Richards was an attendee at PyCon, a tech conference, as part of her job as a developer evangelist at Sendgrid, a tech company that manages emails.
(and as you say, SendGrid was one of the event's many sponsors)
.....
A petition was started and people threatened SendGrid’s business. The company itself suffered a DDOS attack. All this ridiculousness made Adria look reasonable in comparison.
........
when Adria is offended, she doesn’t work within the community to resolve the problem
.......
I suggested that SendGrid had the resources to retrain her and teach her better techniques and that I hoped they would choose that path instead of penalty to her. This morning, they went the other way, SendGrid posted that she was no longer with the company.
Here's how I read that. Adria was not just a delegate at the conference. She was a company sponsor's delegate and her role as developer evangelist was to promote her company, network, learn some stuff, "get around".
Yes she had only marginal responsibilities as a volunteer presenter. But I read these twin bits of info, about her role and her company's role as sponsor to indicate that she had a bigger responsibility than just that of ordinary delegate and bit presenter.
a) The Company supported the conference aims and organisation and had put some money and resources behind that.
b) It expected Adria both to endorse that support and try to do them some good while she was there. She was their person (or at least one of their people) "on the spot".
That strikes me as a normal sort of conference "quid pro quo", and it means that as an employee of SendGrid she had even more reason to support its organisers than a pure presenter would. SendGrid had a business commitment to its success.
What happened is that far from getting a business benefit out of Adria's attendance they got the reverse. And in the end (and we don't know how they communicated with her at that time) they decided to sack her.
Now I know employment law is different in the US to the UK but it sure looks as though the reason they let her go is that they reckoned her continued presence would harm their business. Why? Was this just a craven response to the crappy dogpile she was receiving. Well, I don't think so. It looks like the key is here, in Amanda Blum's observation about Adria's approach to team and communitaire efforts.
quote:
when Adria is offended, she doesn’t work within the community to resolve the problem
Now of course my business inferences are just that, inferences. They seem both reasonable and consistent with published facts. And they sure suggest to me that she crossed over boundaries appropriate to both a presenter and a sponsor's representative at a conference. Take your pick about which was the more appropriate factor. Either way, she looks to have crossed boundaries.
My view is that whatever her full role for SendGrid was expected to be, she would have been in a lot better position if she had behaved a lot more as part of the conference team than as an individualist. I should think SendGrid would have expected something like that at least.
Of course YMMV and of course my inference may not be accurate. That's fully conceded. It's just the way I see the specific picture. I've said all along that I think Amanda Blum's blog presented a reasonable picture and was not that impressed with the counter-blog, as I also said.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The only problem with what Ms. Richards did was that she grabbed a stack of photos and parcel tape as her first resort.
This is an accurate description of what happened only if you view this incident in complete isolation from the realities of sexism in that industry.
And we're back to "Johnny hit me, so I hit you".
And let's not overblow the "realities of sexism" - yes, tech has been, and is, heavily male-dominated, and yes, there are still plenty of sexist attitudes, but people are trying to fix it. PyCon has a code of conduct that explicitly forbids sexual language and imagery, because the PyCon management are among the people trying to fix the problem.
Don't you think it's worth working with people who are trying to get it right, rather than just dismissing them as irredeemably sexist?
By the way, I note that the line in the "How to report an incident" document, the instruction "Report the harassment incident (preferably in writing) to a conference staff member - all reports are confidential." has been clarified in a community edit to make it clear that confidentiality is expected in all directions (the edit version is on github).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes she had only marginal responsibilities as a volunteer presenter. But I read these twin bits of info, about her role and her company's role as sponsor to indicate that she had a bigger responsibility than just that of ordinary delegate and bit presenter.
You're assuming more than we know. The only info I've seen about Ms. Richards' involvement with the Young Coders Workshop is an offhand comment by her ("which I volunteered at"). There's nothing specifying exactly what duties she volunteered for, whether they involved a presentation or some behind the scenes role, or whatever. If you want to share the details that make you confident in describing her, repeatedly, as a "presenter", I'd love to hear them.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like the key is here, in Amanda Blum's observation about Adria's approach to team and communitaire efforts.
quote:
when Adria is offended, she doesn’t work within the community to resolve the problem
Now of course my business inferences are just that, inferences. They seem both reasonable and consistent with published facts. And they sure suggest to me that she crossed over boundaries appropriate to both a presenter and a sponsor's representative at a conference. Take your pick about which was the more appropriate factor. Either way, she looks to have crossed boundaries.
It's been said that the defining characteristic of patriarchy is that it's a system set up in such a way that women can never win. In this particular case you're complaining that Ms. Richards doesn't "work within the community to resolve the problem", despite the fact that what you're objecting to is her reporting a violation of PyCon's rules to PyCon staff. (In writing, as requested, I might add. I'm pretty sure an IT conference doesn't restrict its definition of "writing" to pen-and-ink.) Others are complaining that she didn't take matters into her own hands by talking to the men herself.
I'm still searching the PyCon code of conduct for the bit that says "what happens at PyCon, stays at PyCon".
As a final note, at least one of the men in question was also a representative of a PyCon sponsor, yet there doesn't seem to be any interest in discussing how that's relevant to his actions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Don't you think it's worth working with people who are trying to get it right, rather than just dismissing them as irredeemably sexist?
Can you show me where I have dismissed PyCon as irredeemably sexist? (Or indeed, anyone)
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And we're back to "Johnny hit me, so I hit you".
Um, no. We're back to "We've gotten really bad about abusing women here, so the next person to stick their toe over the line, however far, is going to have a ton of bricks come down upon them."
[ 02. April 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And let's not overblow the "realities of sexism" - yes, tech has been, and is, heavily male-dominated, and yes, there are still plenty of sexist attitudes, but people are trying to fix it. PyCon has a code of conduct that explicitly forbids sexual language and imagery, because the PyCon management are among the people trying to fix the problem.
Don't you think it's worth working with people who are trying to get it right, rather than just dismissing them as irredeemably sexist?
I don't know. Since the pricetag for "working with people who are trying to get it right" by letting them know when their code of conduct is being violated seems to be a series of vile internet threats and the loss of employment, the incentives seem stacked against working with them. So while none of this is PyCon's fault, I can see why a woman would be reluctant to work with them on this particular front.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't know. Since the pricetag for "working with people who are trying to get it right" by letting them know when their code of conduct is being violated seems to be a series of vile internet threats and the loss of employment, the incentives seem stacked against working with them. So while none of this is PyCon's fault, I can see why a woman would be reluctant to work with them on this particular front.
But that is exactly false. The vile outpourings of the basement warriors were in response to "Ms. Richards getting Dongle Man sacked". The slingers of vile threats are not the PyCon management.
In fact, had Ms. Richards done what I think she should have done (private message to PyCon staff), there would have been no vile threats, no loss of employment and no story. If she had actually "worked with people who are trying to get it right," she would still be employed.
So let's put the incentives in the right column.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In this particular case you're complaining that Ms. Richards doesn't "work within the community to resolve the problem", despite the fact that what you're objecting to is her reporting a violation of PyCon's rules to PyCon staff. (In writing, as requested, I might add. I'm pretty sure an IT conference doesn't restrict its definition of "writing" to pen-and-ink.)
That's something that I've thought about on this thread -- at every IT-related conference I've been at in a long while, Twitter has been the expected and preferred means of communicating with the conference staff. I'm not sure exactly how that fits into any analysis of what Adria did or didn't do, but I think it's' probably a factor that should be considered.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can you show me where I have dismissed PyCon as irredeemably sexist? (Or indeed, anyone)
You have referred repeatedly to the IT world being "openly and sometimes viciously hostile toward women," and have throughout this discussion treated the IT world as a uniform monoculture. You have dismissed suggestions that one should examine the behaviour of Dongle Man and his friend in isolation, but insist that it should only be viewed as part of the wider sexist culture in tech.
"Irredeemably" might have been a touch of hyperbole, but PyCon is part of the IT world, which you insist we must treat as a sexist monoculture.
I agree that there is a culture of being "openly and sometimes viciously hostile toward women," but I claim that it is far from uniform, and so one shouldn't treat it as if it were.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's something that I've thought about on this thread -- at every IT-related conference I've been at in a long while, Twitter has been the expected and preferred means of communicating with the conference staff. I'm not sure exactly how that fits into any analysis of what Adria did or didn't do, but I think it's' probably a factor that should be considered.
I would distinguish between public communication (things like asking where session 4 was moved to, or asking if the noisy A/C could be turned down in room C) which is of legitimate interest to other conference-goers, and things which should not be public. I'm sure nobody would tweet their credit card number in order to pay the registration fee.
As I noted above, the PyCon code of conduct did expect that complaints were confidential, although the language was a little muddy, and could just be interpreted to mean that the conference staff won't tell anyone.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're assuming more than we know.
What part of the word inference are you having trouble with here. I've said YMMV. From what I know of the business world and normal conference expectations there is always a business benefit angle in there somewhere. That's "News at 11" stuff. Reading between the lines of course, but no great leap.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like the key is here, in Amanda Blum's observation about Adria's approach to team and communitaire efforts.
quote:
when Adria is offended, she doesn’t work within the community to resolve the problem
It's been said that the defining characteristic of patriarchy is that it's a system set up in such a way that women can never win.
Interesting that the critical observation came from a woman in business, then. quote:
In this particular case you're complaining that Ms. Richards doesn't "work within the community to resolve the problem", despite the fact that what you're objecting to is her reporting a violation of PyCon's rules to PyCon staff.
That's not what I'm doing. I'm suggesting that was the one of the reasons her former employer sacked her. The issue is whether the Twitter entry crossed up normal business boundaries, either with the conference or her employer.
Look, here's what I think you do as an employee if something like this happens when you're wearing your company hat. You ring up your boss (at SendGrid in this case) tell the boss you're appalled and what you're thinking about doing. But first you check out what the boss thinks about the possible business consequences to SendGrid of the Tweet you're strongly tempted to make.
If the boss says "go for it" you go for it. You've covered both your asses by the consultation and the choice has gone to the right level. If the boss doesn't like it, sees it as counter-productive either to the SendGrid business, or the sponsorship, or the relationship with Pycon, you don't do it. And if you've got any sense you do a simlar check with the conference organisers who your company is sponsoring after all. That's called being a team player. It's not being a sycophant, or conforming to some kind of conspiracy of silence. It's just doing your job.
I think I'm going to have to leave it there. This case isn't about patriarchy, its just about normal accountability within a hierarchy. But I don't think we're ever going to agree on that.
[ 02. April 2013, 23:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I would distinguish between public communication (things like asking where session 4 was moved to, or asking if the noisy A/C could be turned down in room C) which is of legitimate interest to other conference-goers, and things which should not be public.
I'm not sure I'd classify a hostile/sexist conference environment as something that's of no legitimate interest to other conference-goers. That kind of assertion seems like it's treating the IT world as a uniform (and sexist) monoculture.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're assuming more than we know.
What part of the word inference are you having trouble with here.
The part where you infer "volunteer" = "presenter". You can volunteer for a lot of different stuff, and yet you seem determined to stuff Ms. Richards into the "presenter" box, for reasons that seem mostly to do with asserting some kind of professional obligation on her part.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Look, here's what I think you do as an employee if something like this happens when you're wearing your company hat.
Given that very few attendees at these events pay to attend out of their own pocket (and most of those who do are representing sole-proprietorships), isn't everyone there wearing a "company hat" to one degree or another? In other words, doesn't the "company hat" angle make this applicable to virtually all attendees?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You ring up your boss (at SendGrid in this case) tell the boss you're appalled and what you're thinking about doing. But first you check out what the boss thinks about the possible business consequences to SendGrid of the Tweet you're strongly tempted to make.
If the boss says "go for it" you go for it. You've covered your ass and his. If the boss doesn't like it, sees it as counter-productive either to the SendGrid business, or the sponsorship, or the relationship with Pycon, you don't do it.
Except you haven't covered your bosses' ass, you've passed the buck to make sure you boss is held accountable for what happens and not you. This also seems to assume your boss has time for this level of micromanagement. "Boss, is it okay for me to volunteer for the Young Coders Workshop?" "Boss, here's the question I'd like to ask. . . . " "Boss, I've been invited to have lunch with that rep from Amalgamated Widgets. Can I accept?" "Boss, should I have the sandwich or the salad?" "Boss, my co-worker just fell down a flight of stairs and is unconscious. Should I call an ambulance?"
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And if you've got any sense you do a simlar check with the conference organisers who your company is sponsoring after all. That's called being a team player. It's not being a sycophant, or conforming to some kind of conspiracy of silence. It's just doing your job.
Or, even better, maybe the event has a procedure already in place for reporting this kind of thing. Oh, wait . . .
Then again, maybe in addition to checking with the organizers to see if it's okay to contact the organizers, she should also verify with the organizers that it's okay to check with the organizers before contacting the organizers. Or even confirm with the organizers that she's permitted to verify with the organizers that it's okay to check with the organizers before contacting the organizers. Or . . .
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
As I said, we aren't going to see the same event in the same way. I have appreciated the exchanges but recognise the impasse. I'm not sure whether anyone else in the thread has found them illuminating.
It's clear that Adria didn't think that a check with anybody else was necessary; thought she had the freedom to Tweet as she did. No need for any team playing about the wisdom of the Tweet, or its possible consequences to her employer or herself. Was she right, or was she wrong about that? Both in advance and in retrospect?
Shipmates can make their own minds up about those questions. One Shipmate's prudent team playing is another's unnecessary micromanagement.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And we're back to "Johnny hit me, so I hit you".
Um, no. We're back to "We've gotten really bad about abusing women here, so the next person to stick their toe over the line, however far, is going to have a ton of bricks come down upon them."
If that kind of message comes from some kind of central organisation with authority, and they communicate it clearly, then it's understandable. If it's a few individuals that decide that on behalf of everyone else, it's vigilantism.
I understand the point about "damned if they do, damned if they don't", but for me, as B62 said, there also is the consideration of doing the Right Thing. Choosing something I think will work better over the right thing is a dangerous path to go down. I don't think it was Jesus' way of doing things, and we shouldn't choose that course lightly. And a situation where someone has stepped a toe over the line is doing exactly that.
And nothing anyone has said has convinced me that the dongle joke was sexist yet. Barnabas explained how he would have found it offensive, which was helpful, but that was about physical objectification (which applies to both sexes), not sexism. The noose analogy doesn't work for me. Nooses have a strong negative message (execution). Penises are neutral. They've been used for good and for bad (I can think of no other way of saying that!), and there isn't an equivalent context like that of nooses / lynchings. Dongle/penis doesn't have anything like the baggage that noose/lynching has.
So, even if vigilante justice is still sometimes the correct course of action, I still don't see how it can be applied to this situation. Which, for me, still makes Ms Richards' actions in photographing and tweeting to shame a vast overreaction.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And nothing anyone has said has convinced me that the dongle joke was sexist yet. Barnabas explained how he would have found it offensive, which was helpful, but that was about physical objectification (which applies to both sexes), not sexism.
Maybe I can have a further go on that? In principle, objectification is wrong whether by men or by women. In practice, the consequential risks are greater for women that for men. I say that, knowing personally a happily married man (a vicar) who was objectified as "the love of her life" and persistently harrassed by a woman, who was eventually subjected to a restraining order. The harrassment might well be classified as sexual, but he wan't in any danger of being raped and that kind of case is rare.
Whereas for women, the risks are, objectively, greater that sexual innuendo and harrassment are related to the sort of objectivising mindset known to motivate many who commit sexual assaults and rapes.
So in that sense I see male objectification of women in sexual innuendo and harassment and I see it as crap behaviour towards women. Because of the underlying risks and frequencies, it's crappier than when women objectify men. It's crappy in both cases, of course, but one strikes me as more crappy than the other!
It may be that lots of men haven't really thought that through, but I reckon it's time to wake up to the real risks women face. Let's respect their right to draw their own boundaries of safety on the matter, given that potential rapists don't wear a placard round their necks and might be encountered anywhere.
Now what's wrong with that?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
I get the need to make a welcoming culture.
This makes it sound like the problem is that the IT world is vaguely indifferent toward women. No, it is openly and sometimes viciously hostile toward women as witnessed by the online response to this incident. We really can't cut that off and consider it separately, because it is the context in which she did the things she did. It comes before as well as after, just to different women.
That depends on the slice of the IT world. I'm a female programmer. I've had the odd uncomfortable moment, but almost all of them have been due to thoughtlessness rather than sexism.
I was saying on Twitter the other day that I feel a lot more unwelcome for being a Christian than for being female. It seems to be OK to talk about "the cult of the magic sky fairy", whereas if you say something anti-women then you get called on it straight away.
I'm definitely not saying that sexism doesn't happen. There's loads of examples of it online if you look. But it doesn't happen everywhere, and decent workplaces/conferences/Twitter conversations do exist. Maybe I was just lucky, but this is where my perspective is coming from.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It may be that lots of men haven't really thought that through, but I reckon it's time to wake up to the real risks women face. Let's respect their right to draw their own boundaries of safety on the matter, given that potential rapists don't wear a placard round their necks and might be encountered anywhere.
Now what's wrong with that?
That all makes sense. Where I struggle to understand is that when you respect women's right to draw their own boundaries, they don't all draw them in the same place. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of people, men and women, that use much stronger innuendo, and in the workplace, every day. It's even been pointed out that Adria Richards herself has previously tweeted a penis joke. To me, the boundaries seem pretty blurry.
I see the point that the guy shouldn't have made the joke when he did, because he was at a professional conference, and that's not the time and place. It's inappropriate. And I totally agree with all the stuff about putting pictures breasts in business presentations and so on (to me, that is sexist, as well as inappropriate). But I still can't see the connect between the big principles of sexism and the specifics of this case. I'd worry that "allow me to draw my boundary here" is awfully like "it's sexist because I say it is".
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So in that sense I see male objectification of women in sexual innuendo and harassment and I see it as crap behaviour towards women. Because of the underlying risks and frequencies, it's crappier than when women objectify men. It's crappy in both cases, of course, but one strikes me as more crappy than the other!
That does help and make sense, though - thanks Barnabas. I still struggle to apply it to this specific context - I don't see how the guy was objectifying women - but I can see the imbalance.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd worry that "allow me to draw my boundary here" is awfully like "it's sexist because I say it is".
Personally, given the historical experiences of women, I can cope with that. Say it happened to me? In my case, it would always be inadvertent, but we're all creatures of habit and history and can cause inadvertent offence by unguarded remarks. These days, I would say "Very sorry, no offence meant, but I see where your'e coming from. Won't do/say that again". Any of us can offend, inadvertently, the sensitivities of others. On this issue, on a case by case basis, I think women's personal opinions should hold sway, even if by some "objective" test (whatever that might mean) there might be some over-reaction going on. There's a good case for positive discrimination. I reckon they've earned that. Some rebalancing is required.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd worry that "allow me to draw my boundary here" is awfully like "it's sexist because I say it is".
Personally, given the historical experiences of women, I can cope with that.
Even if it costs you your job? If I were I the IT industry right now is be stapling my mouth shut lest anything I say be deemed sexist. Except a woman might interpret my staying silent as sexist as well - oh bugger ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 03. April 2013, 12:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
