Ship of Fools: A Joke Leads to Termination

Thread: A Joke Leads to Termination Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025221

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

At a software programming conference, two men were making sexual jokes and a woman tweeted a complaint, complete with photograph.

quote:
She tweeted, "Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles. Right behind me #pycon."

In the aftermath, one of the men was fired, as was the complainant.
I think both firings were overreactions, but more so the firing of the complainant.
The offender violated the rules of the conference, whilst the complainant did not. And she was not fired until her employer was the recipient of multiple Denial of Service attacks.
It is most interesting that the company which fired the man did not receive the same treatment as the complainant's company did. So it would appear this is punishment for the woman daring to complain rather than addressing any perceived injustice.
The tech world, still being massively male, is more misogynistic than the general business world. The complainant's company capitulating to the trolls does nothing to balance the situation.
This is not as much about whether the complaint was an appropriate reaction, but whether the firing was the correct response.
The firing was the business world equivalent of sending tribute to the barbarians.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry. And people wonder why more girls don't go into STEM professions.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

While I would bet good money that they were making those kinds of jokes is there actual evidence that they did, beyond her say so?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If you read the first link, a man claiming to be the one fired does nothing to deny and seems to confirm.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

As sympathetic as I am to the woman's plight, I think it was foolhardy of her to tweet her complaint.

Are people so overcome by the social media that they must immediately broadcast to the world everything that happens to them?

If she had stood up, said "How dare you make such a remark in front of me!" in a loud voice, and walked out of the conference, I'll bet she would still have her job.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Adria Richards (who turned on the two blokes behind her after listening in on their conversation and hearing some mild double entendres which were nothing to do with her), apparently normally spends her time picking on other women in her industry using her twitter following.

This time she picked on two blokes, one of whom who got fired and she became the subject of an internet mob of vicious nasty misogynist bastards, besides the more justified and reasonable criticism that she attracted. She also dragged her employer into the matter while fighting it out with people on twitter. Her employer who paid her to bring them good PR was not enamoured of the whole thing, and fired her - which is sad for someone who became a target of nastiness on the internet and replied to it.

The whole thing is a giant shitstorm. Both employers ( hers and that of the bloke who got fired) over-reacted.

The nasty misogynist internet mob are misogynist and nasty.

Ms Richards also broke the policy of the conference which is against public shaming - because she didn't just follow policy and get the conference staff to deal with the two blokes who offended her, (who by the way, fully apologised to her at the conference for any offence), she also tweeted their pictures to identify to them to people beyond the conference, and then stirred up her followers via her blog as well.

Sexism in tech is bad. Internet hate mobs are bad. But this woman is not someone to be cheered on. It speaks volumes that she went after two bunches of female conference organisers previously - in each case internet-shaming people instead of talking to them in a professional manner.

She's not some feminist heroine, she seems to be a professional offence-taker, but lots of genuinely nasty women-hating people have also jumped on the bandwagon against her. So basically it's huge mess and complicated.

[ 23. March 2013, 04:52: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Oh also, big dongles, big deal. I could totally agree with her telling them to pipe down, but going after them for that? What a ninny.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

I agree, for a person employed in what is effectively a PR position it's very unprofessional when a discrete word to a conference staffer could have achieved the same thing. To take it to Twitter when she was attending the conference in a professional capacity is very self-serving, and it would seem the employer has granted her wish to serve herself instead of them.

That has nothing to do with the wrongness of the alleged joke though, it would seem that was dealt with in a harsh but fair manner by both the conference (ejected) and the employer (terminated).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

She's not some feminist heroine, she seems to be a professional offence-taker, but lots of genuinely nasty women-hating people have also jumped on the bandwagon against her. So basically it's huge mess and complicated.

Yeah, I am not truly defending her. But the reaction of the trollesphere is decidedly lopsided. No DDoS for the company who fired the man. No hate for them. The uncharitable part of me thinks it a bunch of blue-balled 40-year old virgins blaming women for their own lack of ability to get laid.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

I began by thinking that terminating either person was a massive over-reaction, but expected given the corporate approach to risk-minimization. If you are a distraction, you're gone.

So, to the facts. It seems that one of the men made a puerile joke about "big dongles" on a supposedly male piece of hardware. A bit smutty, maybe, and not the best model of professional behaviour, but nothing you wouldn't hear on prime-time TV.

In addition, the men were talking about forking someone's repo. Ms. Richards interpreted this as a sexual reference, which is a function of her own dirty mind. According to the men in question, at least, no sexual connotation was intended. (Forking a repository - taking a copy of it and using it to begin your own development branch - is a relatively common action. ) And yes, I can easily imagine software geeks saying "I'd fork his repo" as an expression of admiration for the talent displayed by a speaker. It's amusing because it references the stereotype of lecherous men saying "I'd give her one" at anything in a skirt, whilst having no sexual content at all. Oh, and "fork" sounds a bit like another word, of course.

With apologies to lilBuddha, I don't think I can really separate the appropriateness of the terminations from the actions themselves, because Ms Richards had a job which was basically PR. So she gets less of a pass for not thinking through the consequences of her actions, because understanding the consequences of public statements is her job.

I still think firing her for this is excessive, but a firm carpeting and a stiff dose of "don't start whaling on some guy in public because you thought you heard something a bit borderline" from upper management would be about the minimum appropriate response.

As for the dongle joke guy, I wouldn't fire him either. Unless he had been warned about his behaviour before, or was due for a bad review and possible termination anyway, he needs to be told to keep his off-colour comments for the bar.

The only thing that was completely beyond the pale in this whole sorry affair was the torrent of vile invective aimed at Ms. Richards after the event. I don't care how much in the wrong she was, or how much of a hypocrite she is, there's absolutely no excuse for the kind of vile person that thinks it appropriate to post comments about how she should be raped and murdered.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the reaction of the trollesphere is decidedly lopsided. No DDoS for the company who fired the man. No hate for them.

Come on - give the nutbags credit for some rationality, at least. Attacking the company that fired the man isn't going to achieve anything - they're never going to call him and say "actually, the internet complained, so would you like your job back"?

The only thing that is actually achievable is to make enough noise that Ms. Richards gets fired too. So the lopsidedness is perfectly rational.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

What poor excuses for human beings the lot of them are. People who don't know how to behave properly in work situations deserve to be terminated. That includes people messing around tweeting.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I agree, for a person employed in what is effectively a PR position it's very unprofessional when a discrete word to a conference staffer could have achieved the same thing. To take it to Twitter when she was attending the conference in a professional capacity is very self-serving, and it would seem the employer has granted her wish to serve herself instead of them.

An alternative view:

quote:
A typical observation is that Adria Richards should have simply had a few quiet words with the guys, perhaps a kinder, gentler version of “shut the fuck up”, and not gone nuclear by publicly outing them to her >12K twitter followers. In an ideal, perhaps naive world, the guys would have stopped their running dialogue, seen the error of their ways, and left the conference as changed, better men. Nobody would have been fired, reputations would not have been tarnished, and rainbows and unicorns would proliferate.

However, how many such quiet words have been exchanged in how many public settings, and what aggregate effect have all these isolated admonishments had on the culture, not only of the tech industry, but on society writ large? Perhaps some, but not enough to prevent these episodes from continuing. When observed in isolation, Richards overreacted. The guys were offensive and unprofessional, but as they violated a social norm, so too did she. However, they also had no reasonable expectation of privacy. A few quiet words wouldn’t have changed their attitude, but it probably would have ended the running dialogue, but also might have resulted in a confrontation. Nothing would have changed save for one isolated episode.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As sympathetic as I am to the woman's plight, I think it was foolhardy of her to tweet her complaint.

Are people so overcome by the social media that they must immediately broadcast to the world everything that happens to them?

I agree. As the blogger in one of Louise's links said, Adria Richards didn't seem to be asking herself the question: what outcome do I want from this?

If you're going straight from the point of offence to slapping it all over twitter with photographs, and nothing in between, you're obviously about punishing and provocation. It's not as if this was a situation were there where no other options for her, if she were truly interested in challenging their behaviour.

The misogyny of the replies to her actions is, of course, inexusable. The best response would've been to challenge her to a) examine her own motives, b) maintain a sense of proportion, and c) to learn more effective ways of communicating her offence to the offenders.

But once things are 'out there' control is lost. Even if the men had been snickering over the most disgusting innuendoes and ruining her experience of the conference, she ought to have had enough common sense to have had a better approach than the one she chose. Crying shame that jobs were lost over this. That need never have happened.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

No-one emerges from this story with any credit.

Best most of us can do is to try to apply our censure in proportion to the gravity of the wrongdoing in each case.

Two things make that difficult.

One is our natural tendency to take sides, and having taken sides to talk up the sins of the Other Side and talk down the sins of Our Side.

The other is the disconnect between intention and consequences. Where I come from, losing a job is a pretty big deal. But the boss who unjustly fired the man may have done it reluctantly, with good intention, in a spirit of trying his/her best to do his/her duty as an executive of the company.

Conversely, the senders of hate mail may have acted from the worst of twisted motives, with minimal impact individually.

Seems to me that Learning Cniht has it about right in reacting to this sorry tale.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

So the blogger is a hard-assed bitch with a history of over-reacting. I've worked in high tech for 30 years, and it's because of the over-reacting hard-assed bitches that I can move around the office without having to worry about a man patting my butt as I walk by, or putting his hands on my shoulders while I'm typing, or moving a strand of hair out of my face. It's because of hard-assed bitches like her that it's no longer acceptable to minimize a woman's professional opinion by addressing her as "sweetheart" and "darling." It's because of hard-assed bitches that the high-tech culture has begun to change.

You don't change a culture by quietly whispering your disapproval in someone's ear. You change a culture by forcing change. And that seems to require consistent, uncomfortable, over-reaction.

Mildly sexist jokes at a tech event are a problem, not because they are overwhelmingly offensive, but because they are used to define who is welcome, who is part of the community, and who isn't. They objectify women, and make women into outsiders.

If you want an eye-opening read on the subject of gender, read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. It's research, not polemic. Read it, and then think about what happened at PyCon.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I don't tweet. so I don't know entirely how things work in the twitter world.

I can see, however, posting a somewhat snarky comment on my FB page in similar circumstances. The intent would be about the same as telling my friends a story about some stupid comments being said somewhere by someone. While not private, such a FB post would be presented as if sharing with real life friends (or at least acquaintances), as a private individual, rather than as a company representative.

On the other hand, she apparently had 12K followers. I'm guessing that means her twitter account is at least partially used in a professional, rather than personal, capacity. That being the case, It seems she should assume that whatever she posts will be viewed as if it were in a business meeting context. In other words, she shouldn't have made the sort of snide, personal observation.

I assume, since the company knew who to fire, that she specifically identified the men in question (rather than just saying "a couple of guys"). that seems un professional for something so minor, in such a public forum.

I think this may be one of the dangers of something like Twitter: it blurs the line between personal and professional. She is posting like a person speaking with other persons privately, but it's being read by 12K people very publicly.

Should she have been fired for that? perhaps. depends on just to what extent the twitter account was associated with her employer. I assume it was, but I may be wrong, and she may have those 12K followers because of some personal blogging she does or some other factor.

Should the guys have been fired? probably not unless this is just one more example of a pattern of behavior. Just like she should have been aware that she was not posting to a group of friends, they should have been aware that they were not in private. but fired? seems a bit much.

just a general example of how technology can complicate things, and how we haven't entirely learned, as a society, how to deal with the merging of public and private space that results.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

Josephine:

I think ther is a difference between:

quote:
...overheard a joke...

and:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
... I can move around the office without having to worry about a man patting my butt as I walk by, or putting his hands on my shoulders while I'm typing, or moving a strand of hair out of my face.

The former is a private conversation (I admit not in the most private of places to have one but everyone at somepoint has tried to have a private conversation in a busy place) and the other is openly directed at someone/crosses personal boundaries/etc/etc.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Presumably, The One Ronnie shouldn't have gone on TV in prime time to say that "My Blackberry Is Not Working"
with all the innuendoes that this implies.

The lady who was fired should not have gone to the Internet to spill her venom. She was supposedly a professional and should have channels to make her complaints. If she ignores those and stirs up trouble the company is justified in firing her.

And anyone who has any Internet awareness at all knows that there are hundreds of trolls who desperately need a chance to be trollish.

Do you walk into the crocodile cage and say "Hey, don't bite. I'm not food"?

ISTM that she caused way too much trouble

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Presumably, The One Ronnie shouldn't have gone on TV in prime time to say that "My Blackberry Is Not Working"
with all the innuendoes that this implies.

That sketch is hilarious. But prime-time comedy isn't the same as a work-related conference.

Off-color jokes, booth babes, and the like are effective ways to signal to women that they are not really welcome in the tech industry.

Using twitter to expose sexist behavior isn't subtle -- but subtlety doesn't change cultures.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
On the other hand, she apparently had 12K followers. I'm guessing that means her twitter account is at least partially used in a professional, rather than personal, capacity. That being the case, It seems she should assume that whatever she posts will be viewed as if it were in a business meeting context. In other words, she shouldn't have made the sort of snide, personal observation.

I assume, since the company knew who to fire, that she specifically identified the men in question (rather than just saying "a couple of guys"). that seems un professional for something so minor, in such a public forum.

I think this may be one of the dangers of something like Twitter: it blurs the line between personal and professional. She is posting like a person speaking with other persons privately, but it's being read by 12K people very publicly.

Should she have been fired for that? perhaps. depends on just to what extent the twitter account was associated with her employer. I assume it was, but I may be wrong, and she may have those 12K followers because of some personal blogging she does or some other factor.

Should the guys have been fired? probably not unless this is just one more example of a pattern of behavior. Just like she should have been aware that she was not posting to a group of friends, they should have been aware that they were not in private. but fired? seems a bit much.

The main reason that Adria Richards would have been fired is because of her particular position, being that of "developer evangelist" which is the tech industry's code for public relations. This causes three big problems for her.

The first problem is that for high profile PR types who are employed on the basis of their existing credibility, there is no such thing as "personal" and "professional" - it's all professional all the time.

The second major issue is that a similar faux pas by some other person in the organisation would be smoothed over by the in-house PR mouthpiece, but in this case the person bringing the company misery is the PR mouthpiece. She's the one who's supposed to be fixing up issues like this instead of causing them, and when it gets to the point of her personal issues bringing the company toxic attention then they have to let her go.

The third major problem would be the nature of the toxic attention that she was bringing to the company - namely DDOS attacks. For a software developer this is a major problem because it directly affects the ability of the workers to do the core business of the company, which in turn could drive down morale among the employees if it is tolerated by the management.

This situation is very similar to a pro sporting team suspending or firing a star player for some indiscretion which would never warrant any media attention for a normal person like your or me, for example getting a relatively minor speeding fine. The main purpose of a sporting team signing a big name player is not to win matches but to win the fans and the sponsors. When they go out and get caught 10 clicks over the limit it can jeopardise contracts with companies which sponsor the team for the purpose of generating public goodwill, or with organisations which use the profile of the team to spread road safety awareness. Do a really good job of offending sponsors and they might lose contracts or even get forced into various forms of public humiliation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Come on - give the nutbags credit for some rationality, at least. Attacking the company that fired the man isn't going to achieve anything - they're never going to call him and say "actually, the internet complained, so would you like your job back"?

The only thing that is actually achievable is to make enough noise that Ms. Richards gets fired too. So the lopsidedness is perfectly rational.

No. Wrong. Attacking the company who fired the man would send exactly the same message. Registering a complaint would be rational. Complaining that, yes the jokers should have been more respectful, but the complainant over-reacted, would have been rational. Bullying her employer is not.

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
[QUOTE]
The third major problem would be the nature of the toxic attention that she was bringing to the company - namely DDOS attacks. For a software developer this is a major problem because it directly affects the ability of the workers to do the core business of the company,

No, wrong reaction. "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." Giving in sends the wrong message. It becomes not about what may be right, but what may be tolerated by the intolerant.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We have rather strong labour laws.

The laws here under 'labour standards' (LS) and 'occupational health and safety' (OH&S) require every employer to have a harassment policy. If the employer does not have one, a generic one applies, and a situation would be investigated based on that. The employer in this case would likely be fined, and ordered to develop a harassment policy within 3 months, and show that it had acquainted every employee with the policy. The employees who told the jokes would probably be suspended with OH&S reviewing the results of an investigation in accord with due process and typical consequences, which would tend to be disciplinary letter and sent to a training course on harassment.

I have great empathy for the tweeter. No doubt in a neandertal culture, the employer had never done its responsible duty and she had limited choice to force the issue by releasing it publicly. The employer is within its rights to terminate her employment for the tweeting, but she would register a statement of claim (lawsuit) and request in excess of the statutory minimum of 2 weeks of pay per year of employment, probably more like a month per year, plus an amount representing the typical job search time for someone in her profession, subject to review of her efforts to obtain work.

The tweeter would also have access to a human rights complaint, and monetary damages from both the employer the employees involved. The employer would be seen as negligent to not have protected re sexual harassment. The employer would be further humiliated by publication in print and online of the decision.

I would expect the total in penalties for the employer would be in the 40k range. The employees would probably be fined in the 2-3k range. There should be no tolerance of any kind for this sort of behaviour.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Hormonal woman listens to two men telling joke and then complains as she decides to take offence.

I'm glad she got the sack, maybe next time she'll keep her nose out of other people's business.

And what the hell is a "developer evangelist"? It sounds like a non-job to me. If she had some real work to do she wouldn't have had the time to evesdrop on others.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

By hormonal - you mean what exactly ?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

She didn't decide to take offence, she merely tweeted that they were "not cool", which is a perfectly legitimate comment to make. The stupid thing was to out them with a photograph - that was pretty contemptible, but then so is automatically attributing a woman's actions to her hormones.

[eta: X-posted with Doublethink, but I'm sure it's obvious that the comment was directed to deano]

[ 23. March 2013, 19:38: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Well, seeing as work in IT, I might as well act up to it eh Josephine.

I'm off out now to rebuild the church's web site and do a spot of light-raping.

[Sorry edited by mistake when attempting to reply, DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 23. March 2013, 19:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
light-raping

You see that tumbleweed over there --> Imagine it alot.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hormonal woman

rape culture: alive and well

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Like I said, if I'm going to be painted in a particular light because of the business I work in, then I may as well play up to the sterotype.

These two black lesbians walked into a bar. They worked in community outreach co-ordination of course, so they weren't rapists in any way.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry. And people wonder why more girls don't go into STEM professions.

I case you are all wondering, this is where I was called a rapist because I work in IT.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Deano, just so long as by 'play up' you do not mean 'trolling'.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

[ 23. March 2013, 20:04: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Everyone, if you want to get personal - take it to hell.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Oh please, trolling must indicate that I don't believe the things I'm stating.

Why wouldn't I believe that I'm a rapist because I work in IT?

Perhaps Josephine doesn't believe that all men who work in IT are a bit rapey now and then, and she's trolling.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh please, trolling must indicate that I don't believe the things I'm stating.

Why wouldn't I believe that I'm a rapist because I work in IT?

Perhaps Josephine doesn't believe that all men who work in IT are a bit rapey now and then, and she's trolling.

Would you feel differently if it were a daughter of your's who was subjected to juvenilia like this? Or your wife? Ot your sister? Just ho-ho laugh it off?

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry. And people wonder why more girls don't go into STEM professions.
I case you are all wondering, this is where I was called a rapist because I work in IT.

Um, no. This is where someone stated that your industry - not you, not team, not your company necessarily - has a specific culture.

"There is a heavy drinking culture among British students" is not the same as "All British students drink too much." But if true, it might well imply that the culture needs to be changed.

"Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry" is not the same as "All men working in IT are rapists." But, if true, it certainly implies that the culture needs to change.

Is there anything in this story, or the reactions to it, including those on this thread, that indicates that the culture in your industry is just fine and does not need to change in any way?

anne

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

What exactly is 'rape culture' supposed to be?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What exactly is 'rape culture' supposed to be?

Google Is Your Fucking Friend

[ 23. March 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry. And people wonder why more girls don't go into STEM professions.
I case you are all wondering, this is where I was called a rapist because I work in IT.

You might try looking up the term "rape culture" before you say anything else. It doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What exactly is 'rape culture' supposed to be?
Google Is Your Fucking Friend

Yes, I know. I don't think it's too much to ask for a brief explanation of what something means (or more importantly, what a poster understands a term to mean) particularly when we're dealing with a somewhat rarified term that isn't often in common discourse. But thanks for obliging so amicably.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What exactly is 'rape culture' supposed to be?

Internet search is your friend. From Wikipedia 'rape culture'

quote:

Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape.
....
For instance, sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being. An example would be a female rape victim being blamed for her being raped because of how she dressed or acted. In rape culture, sexualized violence towards women is regarded as a continuum in a society that regards women's bodies as sexually available by default.

The idea is that jokes that condone or promote sexualization, objectivication and exploitation of women are at one end of a continuum that has rape at the other end. It is perhaps simplistic and doesn't account for people who hear and tell the jokes and never act, but we might also consider that many people who hear and tell racist jokes don't personally attack the people the jokes are about.

Is there a syllogism? The argument being: racist jokes are to racist behaviour, as child porn is to sexual assault of children, as sexist jokes are to rape. If these are not directly connected, the jokes promote the rape supportive attitudes.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Is a smutty joke the same as a sexist joke? That seems very questionable to me.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

You don't change a culture by quietly whispering your disapproval in someone's ear. You change a culture by forcing change. And that seems to require consistent, uncomfortable, over-reaction.

Sounds like a classic "end justifies the means" argument.

Do you really think it's OK to be a little bit in the wrong in small things in the service of a big thing that you're convinced is right ?

I was under the impression that Christians are called to a different way.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

You don't change a culture by quietly whispering your disapproval in someone's ear. You change a culture by forcing change. And that seems to require consistent, uncomfortable, over-reaction.

Sounds like a classic "end justifies the means" argument.

Do you really think it's OK to be a little bit in the wrong in small things in the service of a big thing that you're convinced is right ?

I was under the impression that Christians are called to a different way.

Best wishes,

Russ

I'm no fan of prooftexting, but there's plenty in scripture about rebuking. Maybe scriptural rebukes are only applicable within God's People, but something similar is applicable in a workplace too, to ensure acceptable standards of behaviour are adhered to.

The sackings are, IMHO, overreactions, but I expect those involved knew what the rules were, even if, as so often happens, they have the idea they only apply to others. Heck, the times I've had to put people straight on that.

[ 23. March 2013, 22:08: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

You don't change a culture by quietly whispering your disapproval in someone's ear. You change a culture by forcing change. And that seems to require consistent, uncomfortable, over-reaction.

Sounds like a classic "end justifies the means" argument.

Do you really think it's OK to be a little bit in the wrong in small things in the service of a big thing that you're convinced is right ?

I was under the impression that Christians are called to a different way.

You seem to be conflating manners and virtue and treating rudeness a synonym for evil. I would argue that manners and virtue have very little to do with each other. Treating "nice" and "rude" as synonyms for "good" and "wrong" is a category error.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

You don't change a culture by quietly whispering your disapproval in someone's ear. You change a culture by forcing change. And that seems to require consistent, uncomfortable, over-reaction.

Sounds like a classic "end justifies the means" argument.

Do you really think it's OK to be a little bit in the wrong in small things in the service of a big thing that you're convinced is right ?

I was under the impression that Christians are called to a different way.

Best wishes,

Russ

Jesus did rebuke a few people didn't he? You're impression would tend to suggest that you think that Christians should only be very very nice and never express themselves directly when people are sexist (or racist). No. Christians must label things honesty and consider what is the right thing to do. So just be a bystander when there's a sexist (or racist) joke. Don't stop at just no laughing. Say why you don't think it's funny. (I add racist, because I think people get that we shouldn't laugh about a joke about a nigger, but apparently not so clear that they shouldn't laugh about a drunk woman).

You might consider a short internet read about the joking over the 16 year old who was raped by 2 high school football players in the USA and were thankfully convicted and jailed.

Quoting from the above link:

quote:
A YouTube video of a teen who was at the party joking about the case went viral....

Do you think Christians are called to laugh along? IMO anyone showing the least support, let alone laugh, for the rapists needs to be rebuked in the strongest way. And Christians should be the first to do it.

[ 23. March 2013, 22:32: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Not a sexist joke in this case. A mild double entendre aimed at no-one, listened in on by someone whose previous triumphs were picking on other women. Because sexists have weighed in on this, it doesn't follow that her behaviour is to be commended. The 'polite word doesn't stop harassers' stuff is a red herring in this case, as the person concerned shows this pattern not only to men but to women who are no potential sexual threat to her.

The conference had a good anti-sexual harassment procedure which she invoked and which was fully carried through. But dealing with things through normal channels doesn't drive traffic and followers to your social media accounts which is core to her job.

The instantaneous nature of social media means that we increasingly live in a panopticon where anything we say in the presence of others can be publicised, photographed, recorded and can go viral - leading to anything from wealth and fortune to monstering and losing our job. Social media marketeers depend on increasing their follower count for their job and their power and personal marketability. The other people around them become the fodder for their brand. It's a social media version of the traditional Daily Mail 'Let's have the two minutes hate about people who morally outrage us!' She likely (given her previous form) reckoned she could make a story out of the two blokes behind her and get those all important clicks and follows that would make her more valuable to her employer (just as she did with the women who she picked on to her followers).

This seems too much to me like marketing using others as a means to an end which backfired in a very nasty way.

[ 23. March 2013, 22:32: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Having read Adria Richards' justification of her actions, she comes across as an unpleasant person to me.

She says in her post that she's recently completed a stand-up comedy course. Her act must be a laugh-a-minute.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Sure. Let's play 'blame the victim', it's a laugh a minute.

Try for a minute to separate out your armchair judgements of the person who complained from what she complained about.

This is what they mean about rape culture. You blame the person who complains or is the victim. Find something about them to criticize and focus on, and then shift the blame on to them, from what they were complaining about. It is merely lower on the continuum from blaming the woman for "dressing like a slut" for unwanted sexual attention. Shame on you for that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh please, trolling must indicate that I don't believe the things I'm stating.

Why wouldn't I believe that I'm a rapist because I work in IT?

Perhaps Josephine doesn't believe that all men who work in IT are a bit rapey now and then, and she's trolling.

Host Hat On

deano

This is a formal warning for disputing a Host ruling in the thread. The Styx is the place for that. The above post has got you a reference to Admin as well.

A general warning

Calm down in the discussion or this thread gets locked in Purg. It's not a rant thread in Hell. It might end up there, but while it's here, cut the personal crap. Doublethink has warned about that as well.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Rape culture is the people going after the blogger and marketeer with death and rape threats and thinking that's proportionate and acceptable. It's not people saying 'big dongle' or 'forking' to each other and being listened in on and used for a story by a blogger/marketeer. Marketing in social media via picking on someone who said 'big dongle' (not even to you!) is victimising other people - and when you do it with several thousand twitter followers behind you, you're the powerful one and they're the victim (at least initially).

When it unpredictably goes viral and many many thousands of internet bastards are outraged by your outrage journalism and act in an absolutely awful and criminal way, you become the victim, and we can talk about rape culture, because it's now in the picture. But can we please stop conflating rape threats with people saying 'big dongle' and thinking people whose profession is using social media for marketing purposes are the victim and in the right when they decide to pick on someone for that. When someone's bit of little league bullying goes viral and attracts a large nasty mob making criminal threats of rape, then we have rape culture. It's a little like the woman who put the cat in the wheelie bin and who became the subject of an internet hate mob. It doesn't justify the internet hate mob at all or in any way, but neither was it right to put the cat in the bin. It's interesting which transgressions attract a mob, but because something attracts an unpleasant and criminal mob, it doesn't mean it was right in the first place. Victim white-washing gets away from the fact that this kind of marketing can in itself be a form of bullying and using others to self-aggrandise.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Rape culture is the people going after the blogger and marketeer with death and rape threats and thinking that's proportionate and acceptable. It's not people saying 'big dongle' or 'forking' to each other and being listened in on and used for a story by a blogger/marketeer.

The way the term 'rape culture' has been used here suggests that it has a wider definition than just rape. If my understanding is correct, this seems to me to be wrong: saying 'big dongle' might be rather puerile, even a disciplinary offence in some circumstances who knows, but it's nothing like rape. I would say that any comparison is an insult to rape victims.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is not a phrase being comparable rape. It is about the culture facilitating the crime. Every comment needn't be a problem in isolation, but about the cumulative effects.
Not all sexual jokes are sexist. The men who were making the jokes may well not be. Many of the responders sure as hell are.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...

The conference had a good anti-sexual harassment procedure which she invoked and which was fully carried through. But dealing with things through normal channels doesn't drive traffic and followers to your social media accounts which is core to her job.

...

This seems too much to me like marketing using others as a means to an end which backfired in a very nasty way.

I think you're onto something here.

I was chatting to a friend of mine after church today, she had also seen the story and thought that the most important question needing to be asked is who is doing the trolling here?

Basically, she reckons that it smells way too much like an opportunistic grab for infamy by a person who was looking to go independent as soon as a good opportunity came up. Working in that field independently requires an extremely high profile, and boosting it with a Twitter scandal just before going independent could be a very audacious way of hosting that.

I agree that it's a possibility Adria Richards was thinking along the lines of "this will be a boost to my profile" with a change in career path in the near future, but of course only she knows the full story of what was going on.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That may be a possibility, but still does not excuse the DDoS and the culture which thinks this is acceptable. Nor the general misogyny.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
of course only she knows the full story of what was going on.

And yet we toss around nefarious motives for her, to make her look bad, as part of rape culture.

I mean, come on. She MIGHT have been thinking this or that? That's so completely lame. It's a blatant attempt at defamation with absolutely nothing to back it up except somebody's feeling. If I have a feeling about somebody's motivation, does that make it worth attacking them over?

[ 24. March 2013, 06:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Would you feel differently if it were a daughter of your's who was subjected to juvenilia like this? Or your wife? Ot your sister? Just ho-ho laugh it off?

Um, why is a smutty (note: not sexist) joke somehow worse if it's told in the presence of a woman? Are women more delicate, sensitive souls?

Your paternalism is showing.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I mean, come on. She MIGHT have been thinking this or that? That's so completely lame. It's a blatant attempt at defamation with absolutely nothing to back it up except somebody's feeling. If I have a feeling about somebody's motivation, does that make it worth attacking them over?

I find this ironic, coming as it does in the midst of a thread where a good number of posters are arguing that all men are potential rapists, or a sexual threat to women. Apparently those feelings don't need any further back up...

And while we're on the subject, how about a little opprobrium for this sexist piece of shit advert. Is that part of rape culture as well, or is this another one of those "sex crimes are only bad when men do them" things?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
of course only she knows the full story of what was going on.
And yet we toss around nefarious motives for her, to make her look bad, as part of rape culture.

I mean, come on. She MIGHT have been thinking this or that? That's so completely lame. It's a blatant attempt at defamation with absolutely nothing to back it up except somebody's feeling. If I have a feeling about somebody's motivation, does that make it worth attacking them over?

Couldn't we say exactly the same about the two blokes, and her behaviour towards them? They used the phrase 'fork his repo'. She assumed that they were talking sexually with nothing to back it up except her feeling, and attacked them over it. It turned out she was wrong about her assumptions too.

I think Louise has got it pretty nailed here. I feel sorry for everyone involved, but the two blokes more than her.

Given that they readily admitted that 'big dongle' was sexual innuendo but repo forking explicitly wasn't, and it was a private conversation, and that they apologised once they realised she had overheard them, I'm struggling to see how the context of their conversation could be construed at sexist. Mildly puerile, unfunny innuendo. If it's used in an aggressive sexual sentence then maybe, but in that case it's not the use of the phrase 'big dongle' that would be the problem, but the aggressiveness of sentence itself (in which case 'big dongle' wouldn't be the headline).

Josephine, the behaviour you've been subjected to sounds horrendous. But to equate what these blokes did with it seems to trivialise things.

I feel sorry for Adria for the unacceptable abuse she's got since. But she was the one that took the photographs and published them without their permission (which has some parallels with another thread) and tried to get her mob of followers to join her in rebuking them. That has backfired in a regretfully horrible way.

I really hope I don't get accused of being part of the rape culture for saying that...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think Louis'es post at the top of this page shows that you can criticise an action without speculating about the prior motive.

Speculations about motive are nearly always ad hominem processes, and often related to Bulverism. "You say that because you are a man, or a blogger, etc". Interesting of course, but in debating terms, they "butter no parsnips".

FWIW, I think Louise's analysis and her comments about victims, victimisers and victimised are pretty much spot on. Particularly this

quote:
..because something attracts an unpleasant and criminal mob, it doesn't mean it was right in the first place.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Josephine, the behaviour you've been subjected to sounds horrendous. But to equate what these blokes did with it seems to trivialise things.

The thing is, goperryrevs, that the trivial things don't happen in isolation. They pile up, and they create an atmosphere, a climate, a culture, where more serious misbehavior is not just tolerated, but accepted, and where objecting to the misbehavior is seen as an offense that should be punished. And the result is not trivial.

Look at what you said:

quote:
I feel sorry for Adria for the unacceptable abuse she's got since. But she was the one that took the photographs and published them without their permission (which has some parallels with another thread) and tried to get her mob of followers to join her in rebuking them. That has backfired in a regretfully horrible way.

You say that the abuse she got was "unacceptable, but." And after the but, you explain why it really was her fault. And the message there, the message from the community, is that if any woman dares to complain about a man's behavior, it is going to backfire "in a regretfully horrible way."

Do you really want to say that?

The kid with autism who got beat up at recess, yeah, you feel sorry for him, but he is the one who was so clumsy and annoying that he ruined the game for everyone else. It's too bad that his attempts to participate backfired in such a regretfully horrible way.

The young black man who got beat up outside the bar, you feel sorry for him, but he is the one who went into a redneck bar and offered to buy the white woman a drink. And he's done that kind of thing before. Just trying to make a point about something, just trying to rile people uup. It's too bad it backfired in such a regretfully horrible way.

So, yes, if she'd simply accepted the fact that women aren't allowed to object to sexist jokes at IT conferences, things would have gone differently. If she'd behaved herself, if she would just take care not to offend men (and women) who may respond to her "in a regretfully horrible way," then they wouldn't have to punish her.

Like Alexandria Goddard. She didn't have to blog about what happened in Steubenville. Go back and read the first article I linked to in this thread, if you haven't. Or read it again, if you have. Think about it. Follow the links.

Maybe Adria is a troublemaker who was embarrassing a couple of white men to promote herself. I don't know that. But even if you grant that, her company firing her in response to the attacks against her is sending a clear message to women: Don't make waves. Be nice. Don't get the trolls mad at you, because if you do, you'll not only face rape threats and death threats, you'll lose your job.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

Re the Bertoli add. Indeed, it would be outrageous we're it old men and a young woman. So why is it funny? Because of the role reversal, and the unlikely hood of it happening this way in real life, and finally, because young men are rarely under any physical threat from little old ladies in real life.

We're this scene, as portrayed, actually one that was likely to occur, it would cease to be funny. The add, in my mind, actually underscores how distasteful the reverse is.

But perhaps that's just me.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Look at what you said:

quote:
I feel sorry for Adria for the unacceptable abuse she's got since. But she was the one that took the photographs and published them without their permission (which has some parallels with another thread) and tried to get her mob of followers to join her in rebuking them. That has backfired in a regretfully horrible way.

You say that the abuse she got was "unacceptable, but." And after the but, you explain why it really was her fault. And the message there, the message from the community, is that if any woman dares to complain about a man's behavior, it is going to backfire "in a regretfully horrible way."

Do you really want to say that?

I think it's more complicated than saying "it was really her fault". I don't think she's totally innocent as you appear to be making out though. Two wrongs don't make a right, and so on.

My problem with what you're saying is that the behaviour that she was complaining about, to me, seems to be innocuous. If somebody complained about me wearing a blue scarf because it offended them, and as a result we both lost our jobs, and they were subject to a lot of abuse on the Internet, then I'd feel bad for them that they lost their job, and that they were then subject to a lot of abuse. But, a big part of me would think "but there's absolutely nothing wrong with wearing blue scarves in the first place".

I get what you're saying about culture and messages. But the problem then, is that it becomes about sending the right messages, not about fairness or justice. So, it doesn't matter if the guys didn't do anything wrong or not, just that we send the right message that women should be able to complain about men's behaviour, because that's the culture we want to encourage. I'm totally behind creating a culture where people can complain about inappropriate behaviour without being vilified themselves. But I honestly don't see how their behaviour was so inappropriate in the first place. Maybe that's because I'm missing some of the facts. Maybe it's because I'm unwittingly sexist myself. But sorry, I can't see it.

So that's why I can't equate it to the other examples that you've given, where you and I would probably be 100% on the same page.

I was much more horrified at the advert that Marv linked to. Imagine if the gender roles were reversed. It's not even like in the diet coke adverts where the hunky man at least looks like he's enjoying the attention. The poor guy looks genuinely awkward and embarrassed. If it was a bunch of 60 year old men oggling at a teenage girl, then getting a pet to pull her towel off so they could photograph her naked, do you think that would have ended up on our screens?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Louise provided a link to this blog by Amanda Blum. I thought it was good stuff when I read it first time.

Of course there is the issue of "competing blogs and tweets" in the blogosphere and twittersphere. Which one helps, which one doesn't?

I thought Amanda Blum's blog illuminated the situation and the three sections

a) What We Can Learn from Overreaction?

b) How did we lose?

c) How it Could Have Gone

made a lot of sense.

There are over 900 reactions to the article; not all of them favourable, but the majority appear to be so.

One of the unfavourable ones suggested that Amanda Blum was in a place of privilege. Actually, as a blogger, she was in a similar place to Adria Richards as a popular tweeter; able to express herself publicly. The real difference is that you can be more considered in a blog. And I thought Amanda Blum was pretty considered in her comments. And also open to the possibility of being shitstormed herself if she provoked.

In the link that Croesos provided, there was another link which contained this comment about over-reaction that I nodded my head towards as well.

quote:
Where’s the forgiveness? Where’s the acceptance? Where’s the ability to not fly off the handle and go apeshit at zero to sixty when we see something we don’t like or we have a problem? Why do we feel we can call people whores, or idiots, or scumbags, or worse, just because there’s a computer and some wires between us and them?
Do we now live in a culture where there are no second chances, where there’s no ability to call a Mulligan, get a do-over, or just have a bad day?

I think that's a fine comment on this particular multiple foul-up.

[ 24. March 2013, 19:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My problem with what you're saying is that the behaviour that she was complaining about, to me, seems to be innocuous.

It seems to me to be a violation of PyCon's code of conduct and, judging by the way they handled it, PyCon's organizers seem to agree with that assessment. Why should we prefer your judgement to that of event personnel on the scene?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find this ironic, coming as it does in the midst of a thread where a good number of posters are arguing that all men are potential rapists, or a sexual threat to women.

Oh really? Who's said that, exactly? Can you give links?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My problem with what you're saying is that the behaviour that she was complaining about, to me, seems to be innocuous.
It seems to me to be a violation of PyCon's code of conduct and, judging by the way they handled it, PyCon's organizers seem to agree with that assessment. Why should we prefer your judgement to that of event personnel on the scene?

Well, I'm not the only one here who thinks that there were a whoe motherload of dumb decisions in this whole case - including all the jobs that were terminated.

And if I'm wrong, which I'm perfectly willing to be, then I want to know why I'm wrong - I want to understand, rather than just accepting that it all must have been legit. For me there's a huge difference between these two kind of conversations:

"That's a big dongle you've got on your laptop there, mate"
"Yeah, it's a big one alright... Did you catch that keynote speaker earlier - he was great"
"Yeah, I'd definitely fork that guy's repo"

And

"Look at that bird over there. I think she needs a play with my big dongle"
"Yeah, I'd fork her repo any day"
etc...

If what was said resembled the latter, I'd totally understand. It's sexist, offensive and inappropriate. But from what I've read, the conversation resembled the first. And I don't understand how that can be construed as offensive. I understand it might have technically violated the code of conduct, because it was a sexual reference. But for someone to have lost their job over that seems so very harsh that I can only draw one of two conclusions. Either the whole story is being mis-reported, or the whole thing is very unfair.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

You say that the abuse she got was "unacceptable, but." And after the but, you explain why it really was her fault.

There is no "but". It doesn't matter what Ms. Richards did or didn't do - there's no excuse for the sort of vile threats that were made to her.
I will re-affirm my statement that by far the worst behaviour in this whole sorry affair was the rape and murder threats from the platoon of internet cowards.

This contains no information at all about whether Ms Richards sending the photo if these two guys to her 12,000 followers was appropriate, whether the guys conversation was appropriate, or whether either person deserved to be fired.

quote:

So, yes, if she'd simply accepted the fact that women aren't allowed to object to sexist jokes at IT conferences,

I don't think it was a sexist joke. I think it was a sexual joke. These aren't the same at all
And whilst I agree that overtly sexual banter can make for an oppressive work environment, I don't think a big dongle joke rises to that level.

quote:

Maybe Adria is a troublemaker who was embarrassing a couple of white men to promote herself.

But hey, they're white men. They're the abuser class, so they're fair game? I don't think the appropriateness of Ms Richards's actions depend on the sex, race or any other characteristic of the jokers.

And I think it's basically never appropriate to go nuclear as the first option. Ms. Richards felt sexually harassed by the conversation of the men behind her in the audience. Fine - PyCon had a well-publicized policy and indeed the organizers responded quickly, extracted the offending men and spoke with them. But calling them out in front of 12,000 people? If Ms. Richards was a typical socially-awkward python geek, I'd give her a pass, but her job is PR. Her entire career is to understand the use of social media and the like, and to use it to evangelize for her employer. It is her job to know the likely result of tweeting the photo of those guys to her 12,000 followers.

quote:

But even if you grant that, her company firing her in response to the attacks against her is sending a clear message to women: Don't make waves. Be nice.

I will agree that her employer was wrong to fire her in response to the torrent of abuse, and I'll agree that giving the impression that the slingers of vile invective won is bad.

On the other hand, Ms. Richards was employed to make waves about her employer using her social media accounts. She made the conversation about her. I can understand her employer not being very happy about that. I still think that firing her was an over-reaction, but I'm not all that surprised, given that corporate America seems to live on a hair-trigger reflex these days.

[ 25. March 2013, 01:26: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Would you feel differently if it were a daughter of your's who was subjected to juvenilia like this? Or your wife? Ot your sister? Just ho-ho laugh it off?
Um, why is a smutty (note: not sexist) joke somehow worse if it's told in the presence of a woman? Are women more delicate, sensitive souls?

Your paternalism is showing.

Oh give it! Your patronizing is showing. The situation in the OP is about a woman who complained. The question had nothing to do with paternalism, but everything to do with reconsidering ill considered comments with the suggestion it might make a little more impact if you considered it was a family member or someone you loved subjected to the situation. Do you get it now?

[ 25. March 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If what was said resembled the latter, I'd totally understand. It's sexist, offensive and inappropriate. But from what I've read, the conversation resembled the first. And I don't understand how that can be construed as offensive.

This is the internet, you know. You are allowed, even encouraged, to provide a link to back up assertions like that. Given how even one of the parties involved admits he was out of line, I'd like to know your source for how inoffensive and totally professional and appropriate these comments were.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand it might have technically violated the code of conduct, because it was a sexual reference. But for someone to have lost their job over that seems so very harsh that I can only draw one of two conclusions. Either the whole story is being mis-reported, or the whole thing is very unfair.

Because it's got to be all one way or the other, without ambiguity or complication? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Is it that PyCon shouldn't try to enforce its code of conduct for fear that an oversensitive employer might over-react?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The question had nothing to do with paternalism, but everything to do with reconsidering ill considered comments with the suggestion it might make a little more impact if you considered it was a family member or someone you loved subjected to the situation. Do you get it now?

But you only named female family members. Which suggested you thought smutty jokes would only be offensive to women.

That said, I apologise for the 'paternalism' comment, which I accept was harshly worded.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If what was said resembled the latter, I'd totally understand. It's sexist, offensive and inappropriate. But from what I've read, the conversation resembled the first. And I don't understand how that can be construed as offensive.
This is the internet, you know. You are allowed, even encouraged, to provide a link to back up assertions like that. Given how even one of the parties involved admits he was out of line, I'd like to know your source for how inoffensive and totally professional and appropriate these comments were.

Well, the links have already been posted on this thread. I've not been on many threads where they need reposting every time they're discussed. As for sources, try the very link you just posted. Did you read past the first 4 sentences?

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand it might have technically violated the code of conduct, because it was a sexual reference. But for someone to have lost their job over that seems so very harsh that I can only draw one of two conclusions. Either the whole story is being mis-reported, or the whole thing is very unfair.
Because it's got to be all one way or the other, without ambiguity or complication? I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Is it that PyCon shouldn't try to enforce its code of conduct for fear that an oversensitive employer might over-react?

Fair call. I was talking about the guy losing his job, and the use of 'whole' was over-egging it a bit. But look, as far as I can tell, the train of events was like this: something like my conversation #1 happened, Adria took the guys' photos and tweeted about it, and reported them. Since the conversation had a mild sexual reference, that was enough to technically break the pycon code of conduct, so they were chucked out. Because he'd been chucked out of a conference where he was representing his company, the guy was fired. You might think that train of events is totally fair and the guy got what he deserved. I don't.

The irony is that Adria specifically says that all you need is 3 words "that's not cool". But had she actually used those words and had a word with the guys, they could have apologised for any offence caused, explained that there is nothing sexual about 'forking a repo', and that would have been the end of it.

But for me, a big part of it depends on whether that initial conversation was sexist. It's been asserted that it was sexist, part of a rape culture and so on, but I haven't seen any reasons given to back that up. Please can someone explain how it's sexist to call a willy a 'big dongle'? It's the kind of language a 4 year old might use. It's the kind of joke that would have got into Dad's army or Allo Allo (had they had dongles and computers). How is it so offensive and sexist?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.

Not in my experience. I've worked in IT for almost 30 years and in my experience it's a great industry for women.

I've worked for many women bosses and worked with many women collegues and they've all been as good, bad or indifferent as any of their male counterparts.

Juvenile humour will be found amongst males of ALL ages and professions.

The idea that people who work in IT are rapists - for that is what the phrase "rape culture" is intended to mean - is stupid beyond reason.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

The idea that people who work in IT are rapists - for that is what the phrase "rape culture" is intended to mean - is stupid beyond reason.

No, that is not what it is intended to mean. It means the attitudes contained within put undue responsibility on the victim and excuse the perpetrator to an extent.
As to your experience, I will not deny your belief. I will say this; I have met white people who earnestly tell me racism is all but dead. I can assure you this is not true.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

No.

It a deliberately provocative title, a phrase designed to have very definite implications.

I could say that industry X has a “culture” of telling childish jokes and then state that “industry X has a culture of Paedophilia”. It’s the same difference, and just as facile.

Using the phrase “Rape Culture” is just as stereotyped and bigoted as racism and homophobia is.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You say that the abuse she got was "unacceptable, but." And after the but, you explain why it really was her fault.

Just coming back to this, Josephine, I'm wondering if an analogy helps. If there was a sports match where a player fouled another player with a pretty dirty tackle, and that player then retaliated by headbutting the player that fouled them, then you'd expect these kinds of comments post-match:

"To headbutt a fellow professional is completely unacceptable. They should be banned for a long time"
"It was a very dirty tackle, they shouldn't have made it"
"The tackle was dirty, but that doesn't justify the reaction"

I think all these responses are legitimate. To say that the tackle shouldn't have been made in the first place is not the same thing as blaming the player for the resulting reaction.

The worst thing by far in this whole situation is the abuse Adria has received on the internet. But we've not really discussed that, because any reasonable person would think that that kind of abuse is totally wrong and unacceptable. It makes me sick to think about it.

But discussing whether or not Adria was right to tweet the photos in the first place, and saying that she shouldn't have is not the same thing as blaming her for the resulting mess. Just as saying that the tackle was dirty isn't the same as blaming the player for getting headbutted.

And, for me, tweeting the photos - especially, turning round and smiling as she took the photo - was a pretty shitty thing to do. As mousethief said, I wouldn't want to assume her motives, but given that she has precedent from people that actually know her, it seems that something similar happened here as had happened before.

So, the abuse that Adria has received is unacceptable, disgusting, and totally wrong. Neither Adria nor the guy should have been fired. Adria shouldn't have tweeted the photo. The guy shouldn't have said "big dongle". These things were all wrong, and they aren't mutually exclusive. I've also put them in that order, with (IMO) the worst first and the least worst last.

Hope that helps make sense of where I'm coming from.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.

Hmmm. I used to work in tech (15 years ago), so I know what you're saying. But I'm not comfortable with the conseqences of your final sentence. Making an example with a heavy handed approach is IMO counterproductive, and only serves to alienate, not unite.

It's kind of like chopping someone's hand off for stealing. Disproportionate, and ultimately makes things worse, not better. Countering something bad reasonably and proportionately is in the long term much more effective.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.

I think it makes Adria's actions worse. if she's surrounded by examples of overt sexism, and chooses instead to attack two guys who weren't being particularly sexist, it's counter-productive, and obscures the real sexism. If anyone then tries to fight real sexism it'll make it harder.

If you're in a hostile area and surrounded by enemies it's irresponsible to pull out a gun and shoot a bystander instead, just to make a point that the area is hostile.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I was much more horrified at the advert that Marv linked to. Imagine if the gender roles were reversed. It's not even like in the diet coke adverts where the hunky man at least looks like he's enjoying the attention. The poor guy looks genuinely awkward and embarrassed. If it was a bunch of 60 year old men oggling at a teenage girl, then getting a pet to pull her towel off so they could photograph her naked, do you think that would have ended up on our screens?

Of course it wouldn't, because if men do something like that they're planning a rape. Just like they are if they indulge in a bit of vaguely sexual wordplay between themselves while there happens to be a woman in earshot. Of course, women who do exactly the same thing are just having some harmless fun. Welcome to sexism in the 21st Century.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.

So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?

Nice.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.
So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?

Nice.

actually "because of the culture - in the imagination of some people who like to find this kind of rubbish in ANYTHING - of the industry in which they hapen to operate"

Let's not give this any more credence than it's due - None!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Using the phrase “Rape Culture” is just as stereotyped and bigoted as racism and homophobia is.

Lots of language policing here. Using the phrase "rape culture" is worse than participating in rape culture, just like accurately identifying racism or homophobia is worse than actual racism or homophobia. This is not a new idea

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?

That's kind of the way we think of ourselves as "in traffic", rather than the realization that "we are traffic".

At root of most of these analyses seems to be the idea that Ms. Richards should have reacted to inappropriate comments that were clearly procribed by PyCon's code of conduct with a smile and good grace (and perhaps a girlish giggle). I'm not sure the fact that this just happens to align perfectly with traditional gender roles is purely coincidental.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At root of most of these analyses seems to be the idea that Ms. Richards should have reacted to inappropriate comments that were clearly procribed by PyCon's code of conduct with a smile and good grace (and perhaps a girlish giggle).

No, the issue is an apparent unwillingness of some contributors to distinguish between smutty jokes and sexist jokes.

There used to be a joke thread in Heaven that featured a number of smutty jokes. For some reason none of the posters who are currently getting outraged about Big Dongle Jokes saw fit to comment at the time.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Using the phrase “Rape Culture” is just as stereotyped and bigoted as racism and homophobia is.
Lots of language policing here. Using the phrase "rape culture" is worse than participating in rape culture, just like accurately identifying racism or homophobia is worse than actual racism or homophobia. This is not a new idea

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?
That's kind of the way we think of ourselves as "in traffic", rather than the realization that "we are traffic".

At root of most of these analyses seems to be the idea that Ms. Richards should have reacted to inappropriate comments that were clearly procribed by PyCon's code of conduct with a smile and good grace (and perhaps a girlish giggle). I'm not sure the fact that this just happens to align perfectly with traditional gender roles is purely coincidental.

It's one or the other with you isn't it? If they don't "laugh in a girlie way" they the next response on the route is to accuse them of being "proto-rapists!" on the internet

Sorry, but there are many, many other responses in betweeen.

And yes, if I'm called a racist when I am not then I will police that language and make the point that whoever called it me is a fool and wrong.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Using the phrase “Rape Culture” is just as stereotyped and bigoted as racism and homophobia is.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
And yes, if I'm called a racist when I am not then I will police that language and make the point that whoever called it me is a fool and wrong.

And therefore there's no such thing as "racism" and the term should never be used? That's an interesting analysis. A more cynical person would note that it would primarily be of benefit to someone who doesn't want to get called out on their racist comments/actions.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
There used to be a joke thread in Heaven that featured a number of smutty jokes. For some reason none of the posters who are currently getting outraged about Big Dongle Jokes saw fit to comment at the time.

And this is equivalent because the smutty jokes thread in Heaven uses the same code of conduct as a professional conference? That seems highly unlikely.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At root of most of these analyses seems to be the idea that Ms. Richards should have reacted to inappropriate comments that were clearly procribed by PyCon's code of conduct with a smile and good grace (and perhaps a girlish giggle). I'm not sure the fact that this just happens to align perfectly with traditional gender roles is purely coincidental.

I am.

If two women were chatting making sexual innuendos, and it made a man in front of the uncomfortable, then what is the right course of action for the man?

For me it's exactly the same. Either sit there and put up with it. Or turn and have a quiet polite word.

To turn round, take a photo and tweet it with a sarcastic comment about the women and their uncool behaviour would be IMO a very rude disproportionate response.

Nothing to do with traditional gender roles, or the underlying culture. It's simply polite behaviour.

(bunch of crossposts)

[ 25. March 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Using the phrase “Rape Culture” is just as stereotyped and bigoted as racism and homophobia is.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
And yes, if I'm called a racist when I am not then I will police that language and make the point that whoever called it me is a fool and wrong.
And therefore there's no such thing as "racism" and the term should never be used? That's an interesting analysis. A more cynical person would note that it would primarily be of benefit to someone who doesn't want to get called out on their racist comments/actions.

Oh good Lord. You have set up the mother and father of all straw men there! You have gone from “I will tell someone they are wrong if they call me XYZ” to “that means you deny XYZ exists”

Let’s stick to the point shall we.

The term “rape culture” has been used about the industry I work in. The impression that any casual reader of the thread or anyone without a background in left-wing, feminist principles, policy and practice, will come to the conclusion that the juxtaposition of the words rape, culture and IT is meaningful in its own right…

That people who work in that culture are rapists or more likely to be rapists.

It’s nonsense and deserves no credence whatsoever.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

Here's a link to the PyCon Code of Conduct

Note that it says:

quote:
Excessive swearing and offensive jokes are not appropriate for PyCon.

so the question of whether the joke was sexist or "merely" smutty is moot, either would be against the code. I believe Reid acknowledges this in his apology.

However it's also worth noting that included in the definition of harassment is "harassing photography or recording". Arguably Richards herself broke the code by the way she chose to report the incident.

One irony is that in order to facilitate discussion on this PyCon have uploaded the code of conduct documents to an online source code revision system. You can now, "fork the repo" for it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh good Lord. You have set up the mother and father of all straw men there! You have gone from “I will tell someone they are wrong if they call me XYZ” to “that means you deny XYZ exists”

It's your point. You were the one who claims that the term "rape culture" should never be used and argued it was a term equivalent to "racism" or "homophobia", which apparently should also never be used.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The term “rape culture” has been used about the industry I work in. The impression that any casual reader of the thread or anyone without a background in left-wing, feminist principles, policy and practice, will come to the conclusion that the juxtaposition of the words rape, culture and IT is meaningful in its own right…

That people who work in that culture are rapists or more likely to be rapists.

Or that they're more likely to engage in the kind of victim blaming we've seen here. In other words, a culture that holds women accountable for men's bad behavior. Kind of the way Adria Richards is being "held accountable" for having the temerity to get PyCon to enforce it's own code of conduct.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
There used to be a joke thread in Heaven that featured a number of smutty jokes. For some reason none of the posters who are currently getting outraged about Big Dongle Jokes saw fit to comment at the time.
And this is equivalent because the smutty jokes thread in Heaven uses the same code of conduct as a professional conference? That seems highly unlikely.

Despite your attempts to frame the issue that way, somehow I suspect that when posters decry dongle jokes as a manifestation of rape culture, they are referring to sexism, not to breaching a conference's code of conduct.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I was much more horrified at the advert that Marv linked to. Imagine if the gender roles were reversed. It's not even like in the diet coke adverts where the hunky man at least looks like he's enjoying the attention. The poor guy looks genuinely awkward and embarrassed. If it was a bunch of 60 year old men oggling at a teenage girl, then getting a pet to pull her towel off so they could photograph her naked, do you think that would have ended up on our screens?
Of course it wouldn't, because if men do something like that they're planning a rape. Just like they are if they indulge in a bit of vaguely sexual wordplay between themselves while there happens to be a woman in earshot. Of course, women who do exactly the same thing are just having some harmless fun. Welcome to sexism in the 21st Century.

Mind you, let's look a little closer at the coke ad. It's even worse (if possible) than it first appears. Thin, pretty, young women drinking a diet product. Target: well, obvious, really isn't it. The Ad isn't even directed at men. (At least home-cleaning products, while showing the typical sexist stereotype housewives being perfect domestic drudges are aimed at the person they're stereotyping.) Message: you, too, could be that thin, pretty young woman confidently ogling handsome, exhibitionistic men if you drink our product. So, yes, definitely sexist. On so many levels. Even apart from the sexism (male and female), it's just lazy unintelligent advertizing, imo.

But I think it's unlikely that either the ad agency that cobbled it up, or the multi-national drinks corp that commissioned and bought the ad are headed by militant feminist types implementing their evil agenda to oppress defenceless but gorgeously half-naked thirsty men all over the world. [Paranoid]

I'm willing to bet that the agenda being pushed here involves the almighty dollar, and that alone. And if there are more women - proportionately - in the boardroom than there are in junior clerking positions in these organizations where the decisions for these ads are made, I'd be very surprized!

(The Bertolli ad is pretty disturbing, too. But then I can't help but make an automatic connection with pervy Italian grannies and the pervy git who was elected to represent Italy in Europe, something else I couldn't understand!)

But as for 'welcome to sexism in 21st century'. Careful, Marvin. You had a good argument about the double-standards of puerile advertising. I, for one, agree with you. Proper feminism didn't try to kill off sexism in one direction, only for it to reincarnate in another. Sexism denigrates both sexes, whoever the victim is.

But you're killing your argument by not reflecting moderately on it, in context with the wider issue.

Let's do a checklist of actual 'sexism in the 21st century'. Not allowed to drive a car because of your sex? Threatened with assault, rape and death at public rallies because of your sex? Had your clitorus mutliated recently? Been stoned to death for 'adultery' or for having allowed yourself to've been raped? Earning less than your female counterpart for doing the same job? Parents thrown acid at, or actually killed you because your girlfriend or change of religion 'dishonours' the family? Required to wear head to toe bedsheets because the wimmen can't be expected to keep their hands off you? Sold off by your family overseas into prostitution so you can send your earnings back home? Dumped at an orphanage or left in the streets at the age of 3 because your family already have a couple of children your sex at home, and boys don't earn as much as, or are as useful when educated as girls?

Go on, tell me 'but I meant here where we live'. Fair enough. But that would be in the well-off, privileged, human-rights exercising, free-speech, leftie, liberal 'oh-look-the-horrible-feminist-ladies-have-ruined-everything' place where you live!

Don't wreck a perfectly reasonable argument against sexism against men, by getting whiney and defensive because women have already had to tread that road, and have - at last - achieved some partial success in doing so.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or that they're more likely to engage in the kind of victim blaming we've seen here. In other words, a culture that holds women accountable for men's bad behavior. Kind of the way Adria Richards is being "held accountable" for having the temerity to get PyCon to enforce it's own code of conduct.

No. If she'd got them to enforce the code of conduct by having a word with the organisers about what she'd heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Instead she went for vigilante justice, acting entirely disproportionately. That was wrong. Nowhere near, not even vaguely near as wrong as the filthy abuse that she got on the internet. But wrong nevertheless. Being a victim in the wider sense does not make her blameless in the initial act. Just like with the sporting analogy I gave earlier.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, the abuse that Adria has received is unacceptable, disgusting, and totally wrong. Neither Adria nor the guy should have been fired. Adria shouldn't have tweeted the photo. The guy shouldn't have said "big dongle". These things were all wrong, and they aren't mutually exclusive. I've also put them in that order, with (IMO) the worst first and the least worst last.

Hope that helps make sense of where I'm coming from.

Thank you. It does.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

The term “rape culture” has been deliberately phrased to indicate that any man within that “culture” is a rapist or has the potential to become one. It is deliberately offensive.

And to apply it to a whole industry in a scattergun approach is at best an attempt to mask some personal underlying issues with that industry, and at worst an attempt to mask some personal underlying issues with men.

It’s a hollow, empty phrase that is used for deliberate effect to denigrate any man. The thinking behind it's use is "If you can't call them rapists because they don't do anything rapey, then call the industry they work in a hotbed of rapists! Slander them that way!"

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Here's a link to the PyCon Code of Conduct

Note that it says:
quote:
Excessive swearing and offensive jokes are not appropriate for PyCon.
so the question of whether the joke was sexist or "merely" smutty is moot, either would be against the code. I believe Reid acknowledges this in his apology.

I'm not sure that the authors intent was to regulate private speech for the duration of the conference.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Kind of the way Adria Richards is being "held accountable" for having the temerity to get PyCon to enforce it's own code of conduct.
No. If she'd got them to enforce the code of conduct by having a word with the organisers about what she'd heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Right. The "smile and good grace" I referred to earlier that seems to be the default expectation of women in these kinds of situations. A lot of "quiet words" have been had on this and this shit still happens. Why is it that it's always the woman who's expected to be "the bigger person"?

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Just like with the sporting analogy I gave earlier.

Right. The whole "that retaliatory headbutt was wrong, but it was a dirty tackle" analogy. I'm sure there's no way that could be taken as a justification.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.
Hmmm. I used to work in tech (15 years ago), so I know what you're saying. But I'm not comfortable with the conseqences of your final sentence. Making an example with a heavy handed approach is IMO counterproductive, and only serves to alienate, not unite.

It's kind of like chopping someone's hand off for stealing. Disproportionate, and ultimately makes things worse, not better. Countering something bad reasonably and proportionately is in the long term much more effective.

In theory, I agree with you. But if you look at the history of bigotry, reasonable and proportionate responses have rarely had much effect. Blacks under Jim Crow couldn't counter the abuse they lived under through reasonable and proportionate responses. Women didn't gain the right to vote by being reasonable. Bigotry is not reasonable. If someone's opinion isn't arrived at through reason, you can't change it through reasonable argument. At least, that's what history suggests to me.

I don't think that tech culture would have changed as much as it has if a handful of men hadn't lost their jobs over behavior that they considered mildly inappropriate at worst. If a man pats your butt as he passes you in the hallway, why should you raise a stink? Why should you do anything that results in his being fired? Wouldn't it be more reasonable and proportionate to just have a word with him, to say "That's not cool, dude"? I'm sure the men fired over such things would have thought so. And not a small number of their colleagues, both male and female.

So most women didn't make a stink. We figured out how to keep a desk or a chair between ourselves and the jerks who couldn't keep their hands to themselves. We avoided being alone in an office or meeting room with them. Sometimes we declined travel for business -- meeting them in their hotel room to go over confidential business information was just too great a risk. Having to navigate those kinds of choices every day was part of the cost of having a job. We paid a price for it. But the women who refused to put up with that kind of crap and raised a stink paid a higher price. And in paying it, they made the workplace safer for the rest of us.

I'm grateful for them. And that's probably why I'm not willing to come down so hard on Adria. Maybe she was out of line, over the top. But the other reason that it's difficult for me to condemn Adria's behavior is that women's behavior is interpreted differently than men's behavior. If a man is assertive, a woman doing the same thing is a shrew. If a man is bold, a woman doing the same thing is a bitch. Men who are confident and agentive and risk-takers are perceived as likeable and professional. Women who behave the same way are not.

So it's hard for me to be certain that Adria's behavior was out of line in any way at all, or that the men's behavior was innocuous. Maybe it was. But history suggests, to me, that I should be careful in drawing that conclusion.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

At root of most of these analyses seems to be the idea that Ms. Richards should have reacted to inappropriate comments that were clearly procribed by PyCon's code of conduct with a smile and good grace (and perhaps a girlish giggle).

Can you not perhaps find a middle road between a "girlish giggle" and sending photographs of the offenders to 12,000 people?

Ms. Richards was offended by their comments. It seems as though she got the wrong end of the stick over the "forking his repo" comments. She hasn't said, to my knowledge, whether she would have found the "big dongle" joke offensive by itself, but let's assume she would.

Does she have the right to complain? Absolutely. Nobody should have to endure offensive comments at work. Should she complain? Probably, yes. Tech is strongly male-dominated, which makes it easy for a culture which is uncomfortable for women to develop, even if no offense is intended. Given that, a zero-tolerance approach, picking up on every inappropriate comment rather than letting the mild ones slide, is probably no bad thing.

Should she complain by tweeting the photo of the offenders to her 12,000 followers? No.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Juvenile humour will be found amongst males of ALL ages and professions.

I am trying to visualise a bunch of male legislative drafters getting together and cracking juvenile sex jokes, and I am honestly having great difficulty.

It's simply not true that all workplaces, and all professions, have the same culture. Different workplaces and different professions attract different kinds of people. And people tend to recruit in their own image. The whole notion of a 'workplace culture' depends on the fact that different workplaces will encourage/discourage different behaviours.

I've gone through plenty of personality/job preference/working pattern studies that demonstrate this. Heck, one of the earliest ones I did was precisely about correlating my personal inclinations with careers that were likely to suit. Turns out a major reason I don't really understand what engineers do and have no skills in sales is that people in those 2 professions tend to have ways of thinking that are fundamentally different to my own. I could certainly try those professions if I wanted to, but it would be with the realisation that the prevailing personality, and hence prevailing culture, in those professions is completely different from my own natural preferences.

By all means, defend the reputation of IT as an industry. But to suggest that all industries will tend to exhibit exactly the same kind of behaviours as each other is just silly.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Kind of the way Adria Richards is being "held accountable" for having the temerity to get PyCon to enforce it's own code of conduct.
No. If she'd got them to enforce the code of conduct by having a word with the organisers about what she'd heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Right. The "smile and good grace" I referred to earlier that seems to be the default expectation of women in these kinds of situations. A lot of "quiet words" have been had on this and this shit still happens. Why is it that it's always the woman who's expected to be "the bigger person"?

Again, it's not. Do you think that women don't ever indulge in chatting innuendo that makes men feel uncomfortable? It's not about the man or the woman being the bigger person. It's about the person who takes offence being the bigger person, whatever their gender.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Just like with the sporting analogy I gave earlier.
Right. The whole "that retaliatory headbutt was wrong, but it was a dirty tackle" analogy. I'm sure there's no way that could be taken as a justification.

Well, ISTM better than "that retaliatory headbutt was wrong, so the tackle can't possibly have been dirty", which is what you've appear to be saying.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I don't think that tech culture would have changed as much as it has if a handful of men hadn't lost their jobs over behavior that they considered mildly inappropriate at worst. If a man pats your butt as he passes you in the hallway, why should you raise a stink? Why should you do anything that results in his being fired? Wouldn't it be more reasonable and proportionate to just have a word with him, to say "That's not cool, dude"? I'm sure the men fired over such things would have thought so. And not a small number of their colleagues, both male and female.

Thanks Josephine. I have a lot of sympathy with what you say. I guess what things boil down to is that I see a world of difference between unwanted pats on the butt and calling a penis a "big dongle". Patting on butts is sexual harassment. It's wrong, full stop. Mild innuendo aimed at no-one in particular is, IMO not wrong. It's an inoffensive part of everyday conversation.

I get that your prior experience makes you wary. But maybe this situation isn't symptomatic of what you've seen and been through previously.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Thanks Josephine. I have a lot of sympathy with what you say. I guess what things boil down to is that I see a world of difference between unwanted pats on the butt and calling a penis a "big dongle". Patting on butts is sexual harassment. It's wrong, full stop. Mild innuendo aimed at no-one in particular is, IMO not wrong. It's an inoffensive part of everyday conversation.

Mild innuendo is not inherently wrong. But it is, or can be, part of an environment that tells women that they are not welcome, that they are not part of the community, that they are and ever shall be outsiders.

And the pats on the butt that you understand as sexual harassment were not considered so 30 or 40 years ago. Cultures change. The limits of acceptable behavior change. Now, a man can't pat a woman on the butt at work, or massage her shoulders as she's sitting at her desk, but he can gratuitously include a picture of a woman's buttocks or breasts in a powerpoint deck as part of a professional presentation. That may be a lesser offense than the pat on the butt, but it communicates the same idea -- women are objects provided for the entertainment of the men present. That has the effect of excluding women from positions of power and authority.

quote:
I get that your prior experience makes you wary. But maybe this situation isn't symptomatic of what you've seen and been through previously.

Maybe it isn't. And maybe, when a black man at a law office is assumed to be the janitor instead of a partner, that isn't symptomatic of the kind of attitude that once (but thankfully no longer) led to lynchings. But no one has given me any reason to think that's the case.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Maybe it isn't. And maybe, when a black man at a law office is assumed to be the janitor instead of a partner, that isn't symptomatic of the kind of attitude that once (but thankfully no longer) led to lynchings. But no one has given me any reason to think that's the case.

But this is also a topic about consequences. It's about whether you feel that this particular remark - overheard - should lead to a public shaming on the internet.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mild innuendo aimed at no-one in particular is, IMO not wrong. It's an inoffensive part of everyday conversation.

Irrelevant. The question is whether sexual innuendo is an inoffensive part of professional communication. Context matters. There's a ton of things you could get away with saying to your spouse or a close friend that are completely out of line when directed to a co-worker or colleague.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I get that your prior experience makes you wary. But maybe this situation isn't symptomatic of what you've seen and been through previously.

And maybe someone with actual experience in this area might be worth listening to instead of being handwaved away. Crazy thought, eh?

[ 25. March 2013, 15:36: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Is it only enforcement? That there must be a rule and then violations enforced? Is there no a requirement for judgement and thought? Is there no empathy, that what you are saying and doing might have an effect and a putting of self in the place of another?

Harassment polices and enforcement are part of the equation here, with the usual process being training about the policy such that people are acquainted with and trained with the expectations for positive behaviour with respect to them. The goal being to have people behaviour properly and avoid complaints. I have the clear sense that such expectations and training are not part of what is expected in some other jurisdictions.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mild innuendo aimed at no-one in particular is, IMO not wrong. It's an inoffensive part of everyday conversation.
Irrelevant. The question is whether sexual innuendo is an inoffensive part of professional communication. Context matters. There's a ton of things you could get away with saying to your spouse or a close friend that are completely out of line when directed to a co-worker or colleague.

I don't dispute this as a general point. But it's not always as black and white as that. Colleagues can become close friends. The conversation was between two colleagues - possibly friends - at a work event - and neither of them had a problem with what the other said. The problem was that it was overheard by someone else who did. They should have been aware that others might be listening in on their conversation, who might not appreciate it, but for that indiscretion to be a sacking offence is, for me, well over the top.

Also, just today there's surely been much worse said, by men and by women, than "big dongle" in offices around the world - rightly or wrongly - with impunity. I've heard much, much worse in a professional context. The line where I'd draw "inappropriate" to the level of someone losing their job - or even been chucked out of an event - is much further along the scale.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I get that your prior experience makes you wary. But maybe this situation isn't symptomatic of what you've seen and been through previously.
And maybe someone with actual experience in this area might be worth listening to instead of being handwaved away. Crazy thought, eh?

I resent the suggestion that I've just handwaved Josephine away. I have bags and bags of respect for her, and have listened to and considered what she's said - probably more than if someone else said it. And, as I said earlier, I have my own experience in the industry. My degree was in Computer Science, and I worked in User Support and Installs over two years before switching to Media. So I've spent plenty of time around techie people. Just because I disagree with Josephine on certain parts of this situation (though we probably agree on far more than we disagree), it does not mean I have handwaved her away.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a bit more nuanced than that. The culture in tech is very sexist. This is not unusual in a male-dominated field. That the overheard comment may not have been sexist in intent mitigates this only to an extent.
So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?

Nice.

I grabbed your qoute as it is compact, but this is a response to deano and several others as well.
I stated in the OP (you know, the very first post in this thread) that the punishment meted was wrong and have reiterated this. Apparently proof texting isn't just for the bible.
As my sentence about mitigation seems to have twisted some knickers, let me further explain.
Most people adjust what they say depending upon their audience, this is a normal thing. I don't make sexual jokes around my Gran as she would not appreciate them. But I will make them to people who have demonstrated they are fine with such jokes. The men were in a situation where the could not reasonably expect everyone to be fine with sexual jokes, as the man who got fired admitted.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?

Of course. Spotty male geeks with dandruff who work with computers and can't get girls of their own aren't a fashionable disadvantaged group, symbolise all for which we have contempt or fear we might become. So they deserve all they get. It's obvious.

Would it have been different if they had been gay and were joking about each others' dongles?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So regardless of whether the individuals in question did anything wrong or not, they should still be punished because of the culture of the industry in which they happen to operate?
Of course. Spotty male geeks with dandruff who work with computers and can't get girls of their own aren't a fashionable disadvantaged group, symbolise all for which we have contempt or fear we might become. So they deserve all they get. It's obvious.

Would it have been different if they had been gay and were joking about each others' dongles?

The men in question are spotty male geeks with dandruff and no girlfriends (even the one who's married with children?) and, poor dears, unfashionable and disadvantaged to boot?!

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A lot of "quiet words" have been had on this and this shit still happens.

I've been thinking about this, and about Jesus' words in Matthew 18. People often think about this passage as how Christians should deal with each other, but I think it sets out a blueprint for how people should deal with conflict in general. Many times when I've seen conflict get messy and horrible, it's because people haven't followed the kind of process that Jesus sets out.

I think that there is a false dichotomy between having a quiet word and going global on twitter as two options. Inappropriate behaviour should be confronted. If Adria had had a quiet word, and the guys responded with a polite apology, then the situation's resolved. If they'd responded with harsher, dismissive, sexist words, then her response most definitely should not be to just sit there and take it. That's when you take it higher, to the event organisers or your boss, and so on. If, at the end of that whole process, nothing has been resolved, I would see nothing wrong with taking her grievance to her horde of twitter followers (taking it to the church, or gathering as Jesus said). But rather than posting what she did, she'd have had a lot more grounds for grievance, and my guess is that the community would have supported her, rather than turned on her. But I doubt it would have gone that far - the two chaps seem pretty reasonable and gracious, so the situation could have been quickly diffused.

So saying that quiet words haven't worked before, so I won't bother this time doesn't wash for me. You don't have to be a Christian to think that the model of confrontation that Jesus sets out is the best - in fact pretty much the only way you should treat other people. My experience has told me time and time again that any other way of going about things makes the situation worse, not better. And that's exactly what happened here.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By all means, defend the reputation of IT as an industry. But to suggest that all industries will tend to exhibit exactly the same kind of behaviours as each other is just silly.

By which you mean of course, don't attack the industry YOU work in!

All heterosexual MEN, when gathered in male groups will revert to a more juvenile status, including your precious legislative drafters.

Which is no reason to specifically accuse one particular industry of being peopled with real or proto- rapists.

Black men assumed to be janitors… IT people who are spotty “nerds”… some people need to get out more and look at theworld around them. It isn't how you think it is.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And while we're on the subject, how about a little opprobrium for this sexist piece of shit advert.

The first thought that came to my mind was 'significant shrinkage'.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Marvin, I think the rule is…

quote:
It is only sexist if another group that I don’t belong to does it. If my group does it, it is a “sideways comment on modern life”.

Or something. Anyway, it boils down to “When you do X you are being evil, when we do X we are not.”

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

Ridiculous reactions all round, including on here. Arguing that some incredibly mild innuendo (about male genitalia as well) is part of "rape culture" is ludicrous. The talk of so called professional conduct is a nonsense as well. Does no one have any sort of conversation at work beyond the banal? Telling jokes is part of getting on with people. Workplaces would be incredibly boring and depressing places if everyone had to constantly maintain such an artificial "professional" attitude.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I discovered that humour could get you into trouble when I was at Primary School.

Since then the world has got a whole lot more po faced and serious. It's like a Puritan age, without the religion. Do not dare to smile or crack a joke - you may 'offend' someone.

This is why TV 'comedy' is so pathetic nowadays.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All heterosexual MEN, when gathered in male groups will revert to a more juvenile status, including your precious legislative drafters

Uh, not all of us do. Some of us find it a bit sickening.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I discovered that humour could get you into trouble when I was at Primary School.

Since then the world has got a whole lot more po faced and serious. It's like a Puritan age, without the religion. Do not dare to smile or crack a joke - you may 'offend' someone.

I don't know. I love a laugh, in fact I can't go through an hour without having a good laugh.

But I do find that bullies hide behind the 'I was only joking' phrase.

So intention matters. If your intention is to upset and offend then 'only joking' won't wash with me. If your intention is to have fun then you'll find me very hard to offend. Of course that means I need to 'read' your intention and will sometimes get it wrong. But those who don't want to upset are quick to apologise and so am I, so no harm done.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think that there is a false dichotomy between having a quiet word and going global on twitter as two options. Inappropriate behaviour should be confronted. If Adria had had a quiet word, and the guys responded with a polite apology, then the situation's resolved. If they'd responded with harsher, dismissive, sexist words, then her response most definitely should not be to just sit there and take it. That's when you take it higher, to the event organisers or your boss, and so on. If, at the end of that whole process, nothing has been resolved, I would see nothing wrong with taking her grievance to her horde of twitter followers (taking it to the church, or gathering as Jesus said). But rather than posting what she did, she'd have had a lot more grounds for grievance, and my guess is that the community would have supported her, rather than turned on her. But I doubt it would have gone that far - the two chaps seem pretty reasonable and gracious, so the situation could have been quickly diffused.

Goperryrevs, I fundamentally agree with what you're saying here. And I appreciate your hanging in with this discussion.

quote:
So saying that quiet words haven't worked before, so I won't bother this time doesn't wash for me.

The issue is that, sometimes, quiet words "work" in the sense that the person spoken to says "sorry" -- and you would say that the situation has been diffused. And it has. But the culture has not changed.

Back 30 years ago, if a man patted a woman's butt in the hallway, and she said, "Knock it off," he might have apologized and kept his hands off her after that. It diffused the situation, but it did not change the culture. The man would continue to harass other women. The abusive and misogynistic culture would not have changed.

And I think changing the underlying dynamics is more important than diffusing the situation. I think that thinking long term, and changing the culture, is better than allowing the bullies to save face. Even though, in other situations, I would want to allow the miscreants to save face.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And I think changing the underlying dynamics is more important than diffusing the situation. I think that thinking long term, and changing the culture, is better than allowing the bullies to save face. Even though, in other situations, I would want to allow the miscreants to save face.

Josephine, I think you're way OTT on this thread. A mildly suggestive play on jargon between two friends is not an attack on women everywhere. Being fired for it is very likely the end of the career of the person fired, and is reflective of the kind of heavy-handed corporate tyranny that has become the norm in the workplace for both sexes. I think you are letting your past grievances cloud your usually-good judgment here.

--Tom Clune

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM there are several things here that are being mashed together.
-Are the negative aspects of a male dominated culture alive in the tech world
-Was the joking sexist
-Was the joking appropriate
-Was the complainants reaction appropriate
-Were the actions of the employers appropriate
-Were the actions of the trollesphere appropriate
There are three possible answers to each, not one answer to all.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And I think changing the underlying dynamics is more important than diffusing the situation. I think that thinking long term, and changing the culture, is better than allowing the bullies to save face. Even though, in other situations, I would want to allow the miscreants to save face.
Josephine, I think you're way OTT on this thread. A mildly suggestive play on jargon between two friends is not an attack on women everywhere. Being fired for it is very likely the end of the career of the person fired, and is reflective of the kind of heavy-handed corporate tyranny that has become the norm in the workplace for both sexes. I think you are letting your past grievances cloud your usually-good judgment here.

--Tom Clune

I dunno Tom. As a man I've not had my bum patted or been target of harassment like Josephine reports. Perhaps being fired is an excessive response, but we are never certain of any past incidents with stories such as these. One would like to see due process, but maybe they don't have a very good protocol in this specific situation.

Here's a related example. I recall well a university sciences college where they discussed at length why women formed less than 10% of the student and faculty, and were able to bring it up to just more than 15% when it dropped back to about 8%. The social climate and organizational response to women were cited as key, and all of the subtle ways of mis-treating women came to the fore. It takes much more than enforcement to change things, but it really often also takes something rather dramatic and forceful.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I dunno Tom. As a man I've not had my bum patted or been target of harassment like Josephine reports.

But neither was Josephine (or anyone else AFAWK) subjected to such by these guys. The excessive response is to hold them accountable for totally different behavior by totally different people. There is no excuse for this kind of excess, including that someone else did something else that was excessive. This ain't that subtle a point, and you should be able to grasp it even if you aren't a woman...

--Tom Clune

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Josephine, I think you're way OTT on this thread. A mildly suggestive play on jargon between two friends is not an attack on women everywhere. Being fired for it is very likely the end of the career of the person fired, and is reflective of the kind of heavy-handed corporate tyranny that has become the norm in the workplace for both sexes. I think you are letting your past grievances cloud your usually-good judgment here.

I'll go one further:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And I think changing the underlying dynamics is more important than diffusing the situation. I think that thinking long term, and changing the culture, is better than allowing the bullies to save face. Even though, in other situations, I would want to allow the miscreants to save face.

In this case, Adria did neither. Her amazingly OTT reaction had two primary outcomes:

1) One of the "offenders" got fired.

2) So did she.

It also has had a bunch of secondary results, including:

1) PyCon's management, along with the management of the company the males were employed by, look the fool for
overreacting to something so trivial;

2) She's convinced a fair number of reasonable observers that the whole affair is simply victim-culture twaddle, and unworthy of their support - and cheapened the real struggles women have had in the workplace both in IT and other fields.

3) The use of the term "rape culture" simply adds to the above - if we are to believe that folks actually conflate a sophmoric joke between two males with a culture that advocates/allows/condones raping women, then the term itself is ludicrous, and any discussion of it more so. Again, it cheapens and degrades the experiences of women who have had substantial problems in the workplace.

I'm with Tom here - I think you've gone way over the top on this one, which is odd, as you're usually someone with quite level-headed commentary and advice I enjoy reading.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All heterosexual MEN, when gathered in male groups will revert to a more juvenile status, including your precious legislative drafters
Uh, not all of us do. Some of us find it a bit sickening.

And we're back to the poor weak men who can't be expected to behave any better. This is a key part of rape culture.* It's insulting to men. But so many people think boys will be boys and don't expect better.

Carys

*that is a basic narrative that blames women for being raped and excuses the poor behaviour of men because they can't help it. See the reporting of Steubenville. Women have to behave well so the men aren't tempted because they can't resist.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
1) PyCon's management, along with the management of the company the males were employed by, look the fool for overreacting to something so trivial;

2) She's convinced a fair number of reasonable observers that the whole affair is simply victim-culture twaddle, and unworthy of their support - and cheapened the real struggles women have had in the workplace both in IT and other fields.

This is "the worst thing ever" dodge, which posits that if you're complaining about something that's not literally the worst thing ever then you're focusing on trivialities and distracting attention from what is the worst thing ever. Of course, almost nothing qualifies as "the worst thing ever", so the practical result of following this advice is to discourage anyone from complaining about anything.

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
3) The use of the term "rape culture" simply adds to the above - if we are to believe that folks actually conflate a sophmoric joke between two males with a culture that advocates/allows/condones raping women, then the term itself is ludicrous, and any discussion of it more so. Again, it cheapens and degrades the experiences of women who have had substantial problems in the workplace.

Given the absence of "a culture that advocates/allows/condones raping women", how do you explain the large number of rape threats and death threat received by Ms. Richards?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is "the worst thing ever" dodge, which posits that if you're complaining about something that's not literally the worst thing ever then you're focusing on trivialities and distracting attention from what is the worst thing ever.

No. It really isn't. It's specifically about the way in which she complained rather than what she complained about.

To use the previous example; mistaking black men for janitors *MAY* be part of a continuum of behaviour that ends in lynching, but it doesn't deserve to be sanctioned in the same way as murder.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

All the publicity given to this row makes it less likely that anyone is going to tell a 'big dongle' joke in either public or private (are there still male/female connectors?). It's puerile and offputting, sure. Do jokes like that make it a less conducive environment for a woman to work in? Yes, I'd agree. Especially if they happen every five minutes.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The excessive response is to hold them accountable for totally different behavior by totally different people.

To me, I think this is a critical point.

I have every expectation of being held to account for my professional behaviour in professional settings. Holding me to account for someone else's behaviour (and for whom I'm not responsible) seems to me to violate a fundamental tenet of human social interaction, that of being responsible for one's own actions. It also sets an enormously dangerous precedent, against which people - all people - would need protecting.

I know I can help in providing a non-sexist/non-racist/non-homophobic environment by making sure that shitty behaviour that I see doesn't get a by, and I've avoided sexual harassment in my current workplace by, you know, not sexually harassing other members of staff. It's actually not that difficult. A bit like avoiding being labelled as a rapist by the simple expedient of not raping anyone.

I know what the phrase 'rape culture' is supposed to mean. That there were after-the-event death and rape threats is evidence that there is a rape culture. But in this particular instance, the two men involved in the initial exchange were not manifesting this. That right there is the problem: one guy joking about the other's big dongle isn't per se part of rape culture, and saying it is, is hyperbole.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is "the worst thing ever" dodge, which posits that if you're complaining about something that's not literally the worst thing ever then you're focusing on trivialities and distracting attention from what is the worst thing ever.

More like the "this is making a mountain out a molehill observation". Or perhaps the "boy who cried wolf observation". If every time someone makes an off color joke, some yahoo cries "rape culture!", it won't be long before the phrase gets regarded as what it's being used for - a meaningless trope.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given the absence of "a culture that advocates/allows/condones raping women", how do you explain the large number of rape threats and death threat received by Ms. Richards?

Conflation. The two have nothing to do with one another. Two men making a wise crack at a conference have nothing at all to do with jackasses on the internet making horrid threats which for which they ought to be prosecuted. If the men in question, or persons who could be reliably linked to them in substantive manner, were responsible for the threats, you'd have something here. As that link doesn't exist, to my knowledge, it's a red herring.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I know what the phrase 'rape culture' is supposed to mean. That there were after-the-event death and rape threats is evidence that there is a rape culture. But in this particular instance, the two men involved in the initial exchange were not manifesting this. That right there is the problem: one guy joking about the other's big dongle isn't per se part of rape culture, and saying it is, is hyperbole.

This.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is "the worst thing ever" dodge, which posits that if you're complaining about something that's not literally the worst thing ever then you're focusing on trivialities and distracting attention from what is the worst thing ever.
More like the "this is making a mountain out a molehill observation". Or perhaps the "boy who cried wolf observation". If every time someone makes an off color joke, some yahoo cries "rape culture!", it won't be long before the phrase gets regarded as what it's being used for - a meaningless trope.

For reference, here's the hyperventilating over-reaction you find so over-the-top.

quote:
Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles. Right behind me #pycon.

The double-standard at work here seems to be that "off color joke[s]" are trivial, but accurately describing off color jokes and calling them "Not cool" is a severe over-reaction. For some reason the jokes are trivial when told, but horrible character smears when repeated and correctly attributed.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For reference, here's the hyperventilating over-reaction you find so over-the-top.

quote:
Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles. Right behind me #pycon.
The double-standard at work here seems to be that "off color joke[s]" are trivial, but accurately describing off color jokes and calling them "Not cool" is a severe over-reaction.

No. The over reaction was linking the picture on twitter.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For reference, here's the hyperventilating over-reaction you find so over-the-top.

quote:
Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles. Right behind me #pycon.
The double-standard at work here seems to be that "off color joke[s]" are trivial, but accurately describing off color jokes and calling them "Not cool" is a severe over-reaction. For some reason the jokes are trivial when told, but horrible character smears when repeated and correctly attributed.

The over the top part is in the not turning around and saying, "Not cool", or even having a quiet word with the PyCon organizers, but in plastering the faces of the folks involved on her Twitter feed for the world, and having them ejected from the conference. If they were schoolkids, I imagine someone would be complaining they were being cyber-bullied.

The "rape culture" trope/overreaction belongs to our dear Shipmates, I'm afraid. Which is sad - as noted above, folks who generally are rational and well-spoken seem to lose all sense of proportionality on this thread.

[x-post with Chris Stiles, with whom I heartily agree]

[ 26. March 2013, 18:01: Message edited by: jbohn ]

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All heterosexual MEN, when gathered in male groups will revert to a more juvenile status, including your precious legislative drafters
Uh, not all of us do. Some of us find it a bit sickening.
And we're back to the poor weak men who can't be expected to behave any better. This is a key part of rape culture.* It's insulting to men. But so many people think boys will be boys and don't expect better.

Carys

*that is a basic narrative that blames women for being raped and excuses the poor behaviour of men because they can't help it. See the reporting of Steubenville. Women have to behave well so the men aren't tempted because they can't resist.

Well I think there's a fundamental difference between juvenile humour ('big dongles') and rape culture, where demeaning comments are made about women/sexualised comments/pats on butt/whatever. I don't think such jokes are remotely funny, but making an analogy between a male body organ and the shape of a dongle is just childish and immature, I don't think it's particularly sexist, and I'm more horrified that two grown men are making jokes of a Year 4-type level. I find it sickening that it's assumed that men revert to childishness when together.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
No. The over reaction was linking the picture on twitter.

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
The over the top part is in the not turning around and saying, "Not cool", or even having a quiet word with the PyCon organizers, but in plastering the faces of the folks involved on her Twitter feed for the world, and having them ejected from the conference.

There are numerous possible downsides to starting a conversation that could very easily end in a shouting match during someone else's presentation. There are also some logistical difficulties to providing an accurate written description of two different individuals in a 140 character tweet, or in providing a longer written description to PyCon's e-mail address and hoping someone is monitoring the account closely enough to respond in a timely manner.

Which still doesn't answer my question. If the offense is so trivial, why is it considered gross character assassination to mention it publicly?

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are numerous possible downsides to starting a conversation that could very easily end in a shouting match during someone else's presentation.

Waiting until the end would work, as would leaving the room and speaking to the conference organizers.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are also some logistical difficulties to providing an accurate written description of two different individuals in a 140 character tweet, or in providing a longer written description to PyCon's e-mail address and hoping someone is monitoring the account closely enough to respond in a timely manner.

The issue is in the tweeting at all - why do it? And why add the picture? The only reason to do so is to try and cause trouble for the people she's tweeting about - employment or otherwise. And again, simply speaking to the organizers avoids both of the technological pitfalls you mention. I've never been to any sort of conference or convention that didn't have a place for the conference/convention staff to handle issues that come up.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which still doesn't answer my question. If the offense is so trivial, why is it considered gross character assassination to mention it publicly?

It's not - until we take the step of using it to get the men involved removed from the conference, and thusly fired, for the triviality - which she did. At that point, it becomes about pushing an agenda, and one she apparently is known for pushing at other people's expense.

The joke(s) was/were stupid. That doesn't give anyone the need or right to see how far they can go in trying to wreck the careers of the people telling them. It's just plain vindictive, and wrong - far wronger than a big dongle joke. I, for one, am glad she got sacked - karma is a bitch sometimes.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which still doesn't answer my question. If the offense is so trivial, why is it considered gross character assassination to mention it publicly?
It's not - until we take the step of using it to get the men involved removed from the conference, and thusly fired, for the triviality - which she did.

So to work with an analogy, if she'd seen someone littering (a relatively trivial offense) at PyCon and tweeted "Not cool. Just leaving their lunch trash in the middle of the floor #pycon", it would have been over the top to include a pic of the offenders? It's her job to enforce Pycon's "No Littering" policy instead of just reporting it and going about her business? Have I got your position right on this?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I, for one, am glad she got sacked - karma is a bitch sometimes.

Getting a bit carried away here ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian is quoted in the Huffington Post, which is worth quoting here and you can also check out the article.

quote:
from above link:
The situation, rather than igniting a constructive conversation about what it means to be a woman in tech, started a violent backlash against Richards and women in general. This troubled Ohanian. In his blog post he writes:

The comments (and support for them) I’ve seen over the past few days have really disappointed me and I really hope this is a chance for us to reflect on how we use these tools to foster the tech community. This isn't "political correctness," this is you having the courage to use your words to create an environment that promotes an open exchange of ideas -- not alienate people and certainly not terrorize them.

He's recognizing and stating what some of us are trying to say here.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think that there is a false dichotomy between having a quiet word and going global on twitter as two options. Inappropriate behaviour should be confronted. If Adria had had a quiet word, and the guys responded with a polite apology, then the situation's resolved. If they'd responded with harsher, dismissive, sexist words, then her response most definitely should not be to just sit there and take it. That's when you take it higher, to the event organisers or your boss, and so on. If, at the end of that whole process, nothing has been resolved, I would see nothing wrong with taking her grievance to her horde of twitter followers (taking it to the church, or gathering as Jesus said). But rather than posting what she did, she'd have had a lot more grounds for grievance, and my guess is that the community would have supported her, rather than turned on her. But I doubt it would have gone that far - the two chaps seem pretty reasonable and gracious, so the situation could have been quickly diffused.

Goperryrevs, I fundamentally agree with what you're saying here. And I appreciate your hanging in with this discussion.

quote:
So saying that quiet words haven't worked before, so I won't bother this time doesn't wash for me.

The issue is that, sometimes, quiet words "work" in the sense that the person spoken to says "sorry" -- and you would say that the situation has been diffused. And it has. But the culture has not changed.

Back 30 years ago, if a man patted a woman's butt in the hallway, and she said, "Knock it off," he might have apologized and kept his hands off her after that. It diffused the situation, but it did not change the culture. The man would continue to harass other women. The abusive and misogynistic culture would not have changed.

And I think changing the underlying dynamics is more important than diffusing the situation. I think that thinking long term, and changing the culture, is better than allowing the bullies to save face. Even though, in other situations, I would want to allow the miscreants to save face.

Thanks Jospehine. I think we both agree that the culture needs to change, just differ on how we think that might happen. I think that the one soul at a time method is much more effective than the blunderbuss method.

And again, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say - just that I wouldn't apply it in this situation. I don't get the impression that these guys were bullies or predators or whatever. Just a couple of normal blokes forgetting the context of where they were and acting childish. As someone mentioned earlier, if anything, Adria's behaviour could be viewed as cyber bullying, given the fact that she had thousands of twitter followers and went to humiliate the two guys by posting their picture there. Personally I think it's harsh to call her on that, but I can see the argument.

I'm not sure I have much more to say, but I'll keep following the thread [Smile]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think we both agree that the culture needs to change, just differ on how we think that might happen. I think that the one soul at a time method is much more effective than the blunderbuss method.

What evidence do you have that the "one soul at a time" method has ever been effective at changing a misogynistic and hostile workplace environment? How long do women have to try that method before we're allowed to conclude that it isn't effective and try something else? And whose permission do we need to get before we escalate?

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So to work with an analogy, if she'd seen someone littering (a relatively trivial offense) at PyCon and tweeted "Not cool. Just leaving their lunch trash in the middle of the floor #pycon", it would have been over the top to include a pic of the offenders? It's her job to enforce Pycon's "No Littering" policy instead of just reporting it and going about her business? Have I got your position right on this?

Not exactly - littering doesn't have quite the stigma attached that alleged sexual harassment (and I'm aware she didn't use those words, but it's what she's implying, and what the "rape culture" brigade is on about) does. And the fact is that she didn't "report it and go on about her business".

That said, there is a parallel there - she's using public shaming in a way that is a) not particularly conducive to changing anyone's behavior (and certainly not the behavior of the people she wants confronted, but can't seem to confront herself); and b) likely to cause harm to the person(s) she's shaming out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense. So yes, over the top. Unnecessary. Petty.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
I, for one, am glad she got sacked - karma is a bitch sometimes.
Getting a bit carried away here ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Perhaps you're right. It just chaps my rear a bit, I suppose. I get annoyed easily by people who abuse victim culture to push a political agenda. There are real problems to be confronted, as Josephine and others have pointed out above, and it's infuriating to have them cheapened by stunts like Ms. Richards'.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Does she have the right to complain? Absolutely. Nobody should have to endure offensive comments at work. Should she complain? Probably, yes. Tech is strongly male-dominated, which makes it easy for a culture which is uncomfortable for women to develop, even if no offense is intended. Given that, a zero-tolerance approach, picking up on every inappropriate comment rather than letting the mild ones slide, is probably no bad thing.

Should she complain by tweeting the photo of the offenders to her 12,000 followers? No.

I think this is the element that makes me the most uneasy. Turn around and yell at the guys for being jerks? Sure. Yell at them and inform them she's reporting them to their employer and to convention staff? Sure. Tweeting the incident with the photo? Eh, seems a little passive-aggressive to me. Maybe that's just a personal sensitivity I have, though--I tend to feel people ought to confront those they have problems with, though I realize that there are lots of situations in which that just isn't possible or practical.

As far as the firings are concerned, well, that's corporate risk management for you. I don't think any of them should have been fired over this, assuming that these were all first offenses--but when your company is on public view examples have to be made, I suppose.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

What evidence do you have that the "one soul at a time" method has ever been effective at changing a misogynistic and hostile workplace environment? How long do women have to try that method before we're allowed to conclude that it isn't effective and try something else? And whose permission do we need to get before we escalate?

I don't see anyone here saying that women in general have to seek permission in general before 'they escalate' (whatever that means).

I think people are just pushing back on the idea that a fatuous set of remarks of a sexual nature (seemingly misunderstood) should necessarily lead to public vilification as a matter of natural justice.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Not exactly - littering doesn't have quite the stigma attached that alleged sexual harassment (and I'm aware she didn't use those words, but it's what she's implying, and what the "rape culture" brigade is on about) does.

Is there a stigma to dongle jokes? I thought your whole argument was premised on the idea that the kinds of jokes involved are universally regarded as trivial. If so, where's the stigma from being associated with them?

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
And the fact is that she didn't "report it and go on about her business".

That's pretty much exactly what she did. You just seem to be upset that it was done transparently rather than in secrecy. As far as I'm aware, there are no media accounts that she also pointed and laughed.

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
That said, there is a parallel there - she's using public shaming in a way that is a) not particularly conducive to changing anyone's behavior (and certainly not the behavior of the people she wants confronted, but can't seem to confront herself); and b) likely to cause harm to the person(s) she's shaming out of all proportion to the gravity of the offense. So yes, over the top. Unnecessary. Petty.

Once again, if the behavior is both acceptable and trivial, where's the shaming? If these remarks are harmless, trivial, innocent, etc., why is this more inflammatory that tweeting someone's pic and saying "this guy eats food when he's hungry"?

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

You know what pisses me off most about this thread - the assumption that men are the ones likely to engage in making puerile jokes. In my experience women are just as likely to say this sort of stuff. And I still don't see how the joke in question is offensive at all. Someone decided to take offense but that's a different thing.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, if the behavior is both acceptable and trivial, where's the shaming? If these remarks are harmless, trivial, innocent, etc., why is this more inflammatory that tweeting someone's pic and saying "this guy eats food when he's hungry"?

Because she is editorialising in saying "not cool". The intention is clearly to get them in trouble or belittle them. Intentions matter. And you know what, I think I would be pissed off if someone with 10,000 twitter followers posted a picture of me without my permission no matter what.

[ 26. March 2013, 19:55: Message edited by: quantpole ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
You know what pisses me off most about this thread - the assumption that men are the ones likely to engage in making puerile jokes. In my experience women are just as likely to say this sort of stuff.

We're not assuming anything. We're discussing a couple of men who actually made some puerile jokes in a professional setting. This is a specific example. No assumption necessary.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

Yes but apparently this is an issue because it is part of a culture of putting women down. I don't see that.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What evidence do you have that the "one soul at a time" method has ever been effective at changing a misogynistic and hostile workplace environment?

Well, I think we have a pretty good example that the blunderbuss approach can divide and damage readily available here...

I don't have evidence, other than my observation of the kind of confrontation that frees people and the kind of confrontation that entrenches people.

I don't think culture changes 'top down' very easily. Individuals change, and then you suddenly realise that the culture's changed. That means we do what we can as an individual in our workplaces and try to change things that are wrong. And we discuss it where we can. No one person can magically change everything, but they can influence those around them, and hope others are doing the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
How long do women have to try that method before we're allowed to conclude that it isn't effective and try something else? And whose permission do we need to get before we escalate?

Immediately, and they don't need any permission. But IMO it should be proportional, and as part of a reasonable process, as I mentioned earlier (again, I think the Matthew 18 passage sets out the ideal process).

One thing I've become certain on over the years is that it's always wrong to deal with conflict by going over someone's head before having the guts to confront them yourself first and give them the opportunity to reconsider their behaviour. It's the coward's way out, and it usually makes a situation worse. It also shows a complete lack of respect for your fellow human being, which you should have whether or not they've given you the same courtesy.

As far as I can tell, Adria failed on the above not just on this occasion, but on a number of other occasions previously, in her dealings with men, and her dealings with women. The result is that her actions are divisive and counter-productive. I think that's really sad.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
In this case, Adria did neither. Her amazingly OTT reaction had two primary outcomes:

1) One of the "offenders" got fired.

2) So did she.

Do you think there's any significance at all to the fact that one of the men was fired, and not the other?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quantpole, the statistics and occurrences of harassment of women show it's more frequent than harassment of men, and with men, it's less likely to be sexual. So the perceived imbalance is reasonable.

Most people don't blow up at the least provocation. I suppose the woman could have made a scene and yelled about, disrupting the meeting versus tweeting. But the key question is not whether this specific situation warranted her tweet-blowup, but whether she's right about the culture, and what other incidents might have occurred which she experienced. Was this the straw that broke the camel's back for her?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian is quoted in the Huffington Post, which is worth quoting here and you can also check out the article.

quote:
from above link:
The situation, rather than igniting a constructive conversation about what it means to be a woman in tech, started a violent backlash against Richards and women in general. This troubled Ohanian. In his blog post he writes:

The comments (and support for them) I’ve seen over the past few days have really disappointed me and I really hope this is a chance for us to reflect on how we use these tools to foster the tech community. This isn't "political correctness," this is you having the courage to use your words to create an environment that promotes an open exchange of ideas -- not alienate people and certainly not terrorize them.
He's recognizing and stating what some of us are trying to say here.

Good man.

Interestingly
this article popped up in my feed just now-- just want to point out it was written by a man, but it really does give a good idea of how misogyny can disguise itself.

One comment that leaped out at me (from the article):

quote:
But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.

So, it's like. when a lot of men-- note I did not say all men, or any of the men currently discussing-- but a lot of men, when they say they "respect women", they are confining their definition to a selection of female relatives and whatever ideal woman they have formed in their head. This is not respect, it is idolatry. And the problem with idols, is people get really ugly when idols fall off their pedestals and become human. Idols are very definitely not supposed to be human.

But that"respect" still only comprises a very narrow representative window of what women actually are, the vast population of women who comprise half of human population altogether-- from Ashley Judd to the homeless lady talking to herself as she goes down the street. A feminine 1%, if you will. So, to phrase it in those terms, if a woman who is part of the 99% says or does something challenging, all you have to do is riffle through the 5,908,543 preprogrammed dismissals society has at your disposal, and figure out which applies to her. Too masculine. Strident. Oversensitive. Manipulative. Sexually repressed. Sexually loose. Neurotic. And so on.

I kind of agree that "Rape culture" is a bit strong for the situation described above, but maybe that's just a distillation of 5,908,543/1.

As to the situation itself-- I don't see why anybody had to be fired. Do I think Richards Tweeted in spite, or with any agenda to get the guys fired? No, I think she got mad and reached for the first thing available to her to lash out. Do I think the guys in question are potential rapists? Nah. But I do think that they are invested in a definition of masculinity that includes the privilege to trash-talk a colleague to other men. Not "rape-culture", necessarily, but definitely misogyny.

I think all of the principles should have been made to sit down with a couple of really good mediators--one male, one female, just for the sake of argument-- and a round-table acknowledgement by each principle of their contribution to the fracas should have been required.

I think a lot of people are thinking about the connection between rape and more garden-variety misogyny lately, because recent events have shown that a whole lot of men-- heartrendingly, a lot of YOUNG men-- don't even know what rape is. I think a lot of us are in "This shit just ain't funny anymore" mode. As someone who has a whole cadre of 20-and-younger nephews that I love dearly, I have been thinking of little else for the past few days.

[ 26. March 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Do you think there's any significance at all to the fact that one of the men was fired, and not the other?

The one who said "I'd fork that guy's repo" wasn't fired, the one who said "big dongle" was.

I'd have thought it was because the repo forking guy's employer was satisfied that what he said had no sexual connotation (the sexual element was projected by Adria), whereas the dongle guy's employer knew that the dongle reference was sexual.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

I'd have thought it was because the repo forking guy's employer was satisfied that what he said had no sexual connotation (the sexual element was projected by Adria), whereas the dongle guy's employer knew that the dongle reference was sexual.

Oh, hogwash (No to you, revs, to that line of reasoning.)

Seriously, what was he saying? That he literally wanted to poke her with a fork?

[ 26. March 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Do you think there's any significance at all to the fact that one of the men was fired, and not the other?

I expect that they had two different employers. What is your expectation?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That at least makes sense.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think we both agree that the culture needs to change, just differ on how we think that might happen. I think that the one soul at a time method is much more effective than the blunderbuss method.

What evidence do you have that the "one soul at a time" method has ever been effective at changing a misogynistic and hostile workplace environment? How long do women have to try that method before we're allowed to conclude that it isn't effective and try something else? And whose permission do we need to get before we escalate?

You see, I agree with Josephine here. And for all I know these two men were total douchbags known for their general arseholery and sexism.

And I agree with Croesos: if the matter was trivial, why all the shitstorm? Was it because a woman dared comment on a man's behaviour?

But taken as a whole: making a dongle joke? Not cool. Taking and tweeting someone's picture without their permission? Not cool. That person's followers taking it and running up a mob? Not cool. The developer's employers sacking him as a result? Not cool. The death and rape threats. So not cool. Her employers sacking her as a result? Again, not cool.

Who comes out of this well? No one. It's one big clusterfuck. Who the hell would want to work in an industry like that? It makes scientific academia seem normal.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quantpole, the statistics and occurrences of harassment of women show it's more frequent than harassment of men, and with men, it's less likely to be sexual. So the perceived imbalance is reasonable.

I don't doubt that. What I doubt is whether this particular situation was in the least bit harassment or part of the culture of harassment. In my experience the sort of comments that were made could just as likely be made by woman as a man.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But taken as a whole: making a dongle joke? Not cool. Taking and tweeting someone's picture without their permission? Not cool. That person's followers taking it and running up a mob? Not cool. The developer's employers sacking him as a result? Not cool. The death and rape threats. So not cool. Her employers sacking her as a result? Again, not cool.

Who comes out of this well? No one. It's one big clusterfuck. Who the hell would want to work in an industry like that? It makes scientific academia seem normal.

"Clusterfuck" does seem to sum it all up, doesn't it?

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Do you think there's any significance at all to the fact that one of the men was fired, and not the other?
The one who said "I'd fork that guy's repo" wasn't fired, the one who said "big dongle" was.

I'd have thought it was because the repo forking guy's employer was satisfied that what he said had no sexual connotation (the sexual element was projected by Adria), whereas the dongle guy's employer knew that the dongle reference was sexual.

That's how I took it.

[x-posted with several]

[ 26. March 2013, 20:25: Message edited by: jbohn ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Seriously, what was he saying? That he literally wanted to poke her with a fork?

It was a man's repo that he wanted to fork, not a woman's.

I.e. he thought the guy was a brilliant programmer and wanted to use code from his online repository.

It sounds a little bit rude (and I'm sure that's how the phrase arose) but it's just jargon, and is a compliment on someone's programming skills, not their sexiness or whatever. Just like spamming someone doesn't mean that you've covered them in spicy ham.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But taken as a whole: making a dongle joke? Not cool. Taking and tweeting someone's picture without their permission? Not cool. That person's followers taking it and running up a mob? Not cool. The developer's employers sacking him as a result? Not cool. The death and rape threats. So not cool. Her employers sacking her as a result? Again, not cool.

Who comes out of this well? No one. It's one big clusterfuck. Who the hell would want to work in an industry like that? It makes scientific academia seem normal.
"Clusterfuck" does seem to sum it all up, doesn't it?

Amen.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
In my experience the sort of comments that were made could just as likely be made by woman as a man.

Yeah, I thought of that. Faux-liberation. "We ladies should Get To objectify men, too if we want." Just reinforces the whole idea that doing so is a privilege.

I once worked with a guy for one day at a childcare center-- one day, because the women on staff stared at him from behind the kitchen divider and tried to marry him off to each other, while he was working with the kids. Working well witht he kids, I might add.I reported it to the director, who did nothing. The guy just walked, and I don't blame him. And we lost a great teacher.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Seriously, what was he saying? That he literally wanted to poke her with a fork?
It was a man's repo that he wanted to fork, not a woman's.

I.e. he thought the guy was a brilliant programmer and wanted to use code from his online repository.

It sounds a little bit rude (and I'm sure that's how the phrase arose) but it's just jargon, and is a compliment on someone's programming skills, not their sexiness or whatever. Just like spamming someone doesn't mean that you've covered them in spicy ham.

Oh. OH! Ok. Luddite here. In that case, I agree.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Ya learn something new every day. I would have thought a "dongle" was a type of dingleberry instead of a term for the talliwacker.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ya learn something new every day. I would have thought a "dongle" was a type of dingleberry instead of a term for the talliwacker.

Well, it's computer hardware; a small device that plugs into a USB port and enables some function or other. Most of the ones I've seen come with a software product and contain a key which allows the software to be used on that machine; no dongle, no use. Of course, the name is similar to a slang word for "penis," which in certain circles leads to much "hilarity".

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, I thought of that. Faux-liberation. "We ladies should Get To objectify men, too if we want." Just reinforces the whole idea that doing so is a privilege.

Nope. Just a crap play on words. Reading more into it than that is the problem. Unless you think that any jokes that mention any sexual organ should be banned.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ya learn something new every day. I would have thought a "dongle" was a type of dingleberry instead of a term for the talliwacker.
Well, it's computer hardware; a small device that plugs into a USB port and enables some function or other. Most of the ones I've seen come with a software product and contain a key which allows the software to be used on that machine; no dongle, no use. Of course, the name is similar to a slang word for "penis," which in certain circles leads to much "hilarity".

Oh, ok. I think I have some dongles of my own, then, on my laptop. I didn't know what they were called so I had just called them cordless plugs.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Seriously, what was he saying? That he literally wanted to poke her with a fork?
It was a man's repo that he wanted to fork, not a woman's.

I.e. he thought the guy was a brilliant programmer and wanted to use code from his online repository.

It sounds a little bit rude (and I'm sure that's how the phrase arose) but it's just jargon, and is a compliment on someone's programming skills, not their sexiness or whatever. Just like spamming someone doesn't mean that you've covered them in spicy ham.
Oh. OH! Ok. Luddite here. In that case, I agree.

I haven't heard this specific usage for "fork" in software development. Normally used in the sense of a fork in the road, or development, such that a program might be split into two separate projects. You don't normally fork a repository, you create a new one or just draw out the libraries or pieces you want from an existing one.

There is a double entendre possible, with fork being a minced or disguised way of saying "fuck". I know we used to say it, particularly as 4Q. So what did the guy mean and did he understand the double meaning? I get that he would be able to explain this away easier than the dongle guy, who maybe was responding to his take on fork.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I once worked with a man to whom I had to explain* that I found being addressed as cunt offensive. He thought I was being over sensitive but he didn't do it again. I also objected to him referring to our ethnic minority origin manager as a black enamelled bastard (I think he was just racist, and I doubt my objection had much imapct). The big dongle thing would probably not hit my radar.

(*not a euphemism, he genuinely found this odd.)

[ETA I am female btw]

[ 26. March 2013, 20:50: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[QB] I once worked with a man to whom I had to explain* that I found being addressed as cunt offensive. He thought I was being over sensitive but he didn't do it again.

I have a wife and three daughters. Let him come talk that way to them and I'll put one on him his daddy should have.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I once worked with a man to whom I had to explain* that I found being addressed as cunt offensive. He thought I was being over sensitive but he didn't do it again.

Wow. I don't doubt you a bit, but I'm struggling to imagine a person who doesn't get that.

Usually, even people who feel completely entitled to their prejudice have enough of a sense of self-preservation not to parade it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I haven't heard this specific usage for "fork" in software development. Normally used in the sense of a fork in the road, or development, such that a program might be split into two separate projects.

http://tinyurl.com/39gess

quote:

You don't normally fork a repository, you create a new one or just draw out the libraries or pieces you want from an existing one.

Which just indicates that you aren't overly familiar with the more recent distributed SCMs:

https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo

'fork' is a better description of what happens in such cases, as every repository is standalone but can retains a relationship of some kind to its antecedents at little cost.

[ 26. March 2013, 21:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I once worked with a man to whom I had to explain* that I found being addressed as cunt offensive. He thought I was being over sensitive but he didn't do it again.
Wow. I don't doubt you a bit, but I'm struggling to imagine a person who doesn't get that.

Usually, even people who feel completely entitled to their prejudice have enough of a sense of self-preservation not to parade it.

To be fair I am not entirely sure that he didn't just call everyone cunt and consider it within the bounds of aggressive banter.

You would be surprised what people working in kitchens feel is appropriate behaviour. One kitchen I worked in, the kitchen assistant and assistant chef spent parts of their mornings bragging about the snuff videos they'd seen - and joking about whether the hotel owner had sex with his dogs. In some ways not different from the way I have seen squaddie culture portrayed on screen at times - I wonder to what extent it was typical or not of working class male culture in the area*.

I never felt particularly threatened or disadvantaged by these men, but I wouldn't have wanted to be around them if they were drunk - and I knew my work was temporary and I was not going to be staying. I think it would have depressed me if I envisioned that being my future - if that was the environment I thought I was going to spend my working life in.

*I specifically remember a conversation with another staff about the kitchen assistant - that he had gone out with "a nice middle class girl" and she had broken up with him because "when they rowed, she wasn't used to been spoken to like that". Apparently, he realised he had an anger problem and went to see a counsellor - he was a falklands veteran and I think he had been damaged by that experience.

[ 26. March 2013, 22:41: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

Please pardon the tangent but does 'seduction culture' exist?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Please pardon the tangent but does 'seduction culture' exist?

No, all the tramp styles are just manifestations of women having internalized the rape culture and institutionalized their victimhood. You really don't understand how this game is played, do you? [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Please pardon the tangent but does 'seduction culture' exist?

You mean something like those sleazy "pick up artists" who claim to have tricks and techniques guaranteed to work on any woman? I'm pretty sure "if you do X, Y, and Z the woman/vending machine will dispense one unit of vagina for you to enjoy" falls pretty well within the the "treating women like objects" end of the social spectrum.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Please pardon the tangent but does 'seduction culture' exist?
You mean something like those sleazy "pick up artists" who claim to have tricks and techniques guaranteed to work on any woman? I'm pretty sure "if you do X, Y, and Z the woman/vending machine will dispense one unit of vagina for you to enjoy" falls pretty well within the the "treating women like objects" end of the social spectrum.

Or, just possibly, he had in mind posts like yours that assume that women can't possibly be manipulative creatures -- that must necessarily be a male role. Which of these two views objectifies women more? Enough already.

--Tom Clune

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All heterosexual MEN, when gathered in male groups will revert to a more juvenile status, including your precious legislative drafters.

Utter rubbish. I've observed plenty of groups of men, including plenty of heterosexual groups of men who didn't know I was a queer at the time, and to suggest that they ALL do this is... utter rubbish.

You'd be surprised how often it's possible for a bunch of men to get together and stay mature about it. Heck, the first place I'd start is church men's groups. I can't remember a single Men's Breakfast that descended into ribald sexual humour or juvenile hijinks.

Replacing an IT-industry-wide stereotype with an entire-gender stereotype is doing you no favours.

Also... why heterosexual men, particularly? Are you saying that homosexual men somehow manage to resist the temptation to be juvenile, seeing as we're so much more mature? Or have you just fallen into the trap of equating juvenile behaviour with being sex-obsessed, and being sex-obsessed with lusting after women?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Please pardon the tangent but does 'seduction culture' exist?
You mean something like those sleazy "pick up artists" who claim to have tricks and techniques guaranteed to work on any woman? I'm pretty sure "if you do X, Y, and Z the woman/vending machine will dispense one unit of vagina for you to enjoy" falls pretty well within the the "treating women like objects" end of the social spectrum.
Or, just possibly, he had in mind posts like yours that assume that women can't possibly be manipulative creatures -- that must necessarily be a male role.

I'll take non sequiturs for four hundred, Alex. What, exactly, about self-procaimed pickup artists doesn't fall under moron's vague descriptor of "seduction culture"?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Of course, one of the markers of privilege is that a privileged group can never be criticized in isolation. There always has to be some kind of "but this other group also does something similar" to salve the privileged ego. (Such delicate darlings!) In that spirit, I'll point out that The Rules seems to be a similar "if you do X, the Y will result" geared towards how women should interact with men.

There. Feel better now, tclune?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

What's the difference between pick-up artists who claim they can get any woman they want and those books targeted at women telling them how to make any man in the universe fall in love with them/us?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
What's the difference between pick-up artists who claim they can get any woman they want and those books targeted at women telling them how to make any man in the universe fall in love with them/us?

I imagine if you say you can do it yourself without help, it's arrogant, but if you think you need a book to tell you how to do it, it's humble (or helping stimulate the economy).

And if you think can do it yourself but want to share the techniques with others via a book... well, it's a lot nicer than keeping it to yourself I guess. Sharing is caring.

[ 27. March 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll take non sequiturs for four hundred, Alex. What, exactly, about self-procaimed pickup artists doesn't fall under moron's vague descriptor of "seduction culture"?

The context of contrasting it to "rape culture," which had been the emerging topic of this thread. But we can always ask moron which of us has more thoroughly distorted his intent if you feel the need.

--Tom Clune

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

One thing I've been thinking about is how women may feel uncomfortable with a very slightly sexual joke made by a man (I don't deny that the tech industry is male biased) but equally, as someone who has worked in all female-staffed primary schools as an IT technician, I can tell you that there are plenty of women who seem to have no trouble talking about sex and men in ways that make me extremely uncomfortable in the staff room, yet they probably feel 'liberated' to be able to discuss vibrators, what they wish to do to Daniel Craig should they get him alone, etc. in a semi-public arena, and any suggestion that they are making men uncomfortable is the problem of the men folk. One of the schools has a male teacher their who told me he only went into the staff rooms for staff meetings where the head teacher would be there and would keep them under control, and saying 'that's not cool' hasn't worked yet. Yet he wouldn't dream of complaining about sexual harassment, because that's something only men can be guilty of?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I can tell you that there are plenty of women who seem to have no trouble talking about sex and men in ways that make me extremely uncomfortable in the staff room, yet they probably feel 'liberated' to be able to discuss vibrators, what they wish to do to Daniel Craig should they get him alone, etc. in a semi-public arena, and any suggestion that they are making men uncomfortable is the problem of the men folk.

This is pretty much the exact mirror of the original post's circumstances, no?

We have a primary school (an almost exclusively female environment) and sexual banter which is unwelcome to the male teacher, and makes him uncomfortable. And my point of view is the same. Occasional comments about Daniel Craig in tight underpants are fairly innocuous. An environment where explicit discussion of sex is the norm (eg. the vibrator discussion) is completely inappropriate for work (but a smutty joke about a cellphone being on vibrate would be OK).

Assuming your account is accurate, your friend should indeed complain, to his line management in the first instance.

His first line of approach should not be to write to the local newspaper.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is pretty much the exact mirror of the original post's circumstances, no?

Not until men are in as much danger and fear of being raped by women as women are of men. There is no exact mirror.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is pretty much the exact mirror of the original post's circumstances, no?
Not until men are in as much danger and fear of being raped by women as women are of men. There is no exact mirror.

I think it pretty much comes down to issues surrounding a sense of unequal power. A set of facts that might sound parallel is still not, a lot of the time, taking place within an equal, balanced context.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think it pretty much comes down to issues surrounding a sense of unequal power. A set of facts that might sound parallel is still not, a lot of the time, taking place within an equal, balanced context.

That's exactly right.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

MT and Orfeo have it right.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

So cards on the table then: in the example cited (female staff "always" having sexual conversations in staff room, single male teacher is uncomfortable), is this sexual harassment, and what should happen?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So cards on the table then: in the example cited (female staff "always" having sexual conversations in staff room, single male teacher is uncomfortable), is this sexual harassment, and what should happen?

Can't say without knowing more about the situation. Did you read what orfeo and I said?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can't say without knowing more about the situation. Did you read what orfeo and I said?

Yes, and I think "fear of rape" is pretty much a non-sequitur. Very little sexual harassment involves a threat or fear of rape.

In the original post, Ms. Richards was not afraid that she was going to be raped on the floor of the conference room. That doesn't mean that she should have to put up with sexual innuendo.

Orfeo writes about a sense of unequal power, with which I mostly agree. In this example (a primary school), the power is held by women. In the vast majority of primary schools, the head teacher is a woman, the senior and long-serving staff are women, and male teachers are a rarity. If there's one man on site, he's probably the janitor.

How is that not a mirror of the female employee in the tech industry?

I'll agree that our female tech employee is more likely to face a proposition on a business trip than the male teacher on a school trip, and I'll agree that when he leaves work, the male teacher gets to take off his minority suit and become one of the lads down the pub, and so to the extent that the wider society treats men better, he's better off. I don't think those differences are important enough to make much of a difference here.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In this example (a primary school), the power is held by women.

Also see the post from Kelly Alves half way up the page, where she talks about a man who quit his childcare job on day 1 because of sexual harassment by the female staff. Childcare would be another field where a small number of men are encroaching in to traditionally female territory.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Very little sexual harassment involves a threat or fear of rape.

Very little sexual harrassment may involve overt threats of rape, but rape is precisely what it's about.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

It's also about being treated like a thing, not a person with your own rights and boundaries.

Neither women nor men should be treated as things.

In Terry Pratchett's "Carpe Jugulem", Granny Weatherwax remarks that sin begins when you treat people as things.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I've worked in a primary school for the past 8 years - becoming the third male member of staff out of around 30 in total. Which is actually pretty good for a UK primary school.

I don't know: maybe I've exuded all the right "I do not do banter, I barely manage small talk, but I am a competent adult, just leave me alone to do my job" vibes, and I hate, positively *hate* staff nights out and point blank refuse to go on any of them any more because they're frankly awful. (Hell's teeth, drunk teachers? Thank you but no.). And it seems to me that there, rather than in the staff room is where boundaries get stretched.

But certainly, I can see a situation where I was being harassed by one of my colleagues, and the SMT inexplicably refuse to do anything about it, and the harassment went on - going over the Head to the press would not only be viable option, it might even be expedient. It would depend on how I felt about the LEA or my union rep, I think.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You don't normally fork a repository

I've got a banner on the website for an app I make saying "Fork me on GitHub". I assure you I've never considered it as a sexual joke. That's just what the terminology is — I don't know of another word to use instead.

If someone is sniggering because it sounds a bit like Bum, I'd suggest that it's more about the mind of the beholder!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not until men are in as much danger and fear of being raped by women as women are of men. There is no exact mirror.

Ah yes, the old "all men are potential rapists" canard. It's bullshit. And prejudiced bullshit at that.

This may prove controversial, but let's look at some statistics:

Rapes in the UK (2006): 85,000 (source) - note that that's reported rapes, not convictions. Total adult male population of the UK (2011): 31,029,000 (source). Assuming each rape was by a different attacker, 0.2% of men are rapists.

By way of comparison, and to show how I feel about this, the number of convicted criminals who have black skin (2010) is 11,645 (source) - total derived by calculation based on the first table. The total black-skinned population of the UK (2011) is 1,148,738 (source). That means that 1.0% of black-skinned people in the UK are convicted criminals.

Now, it would clearly be utterly wrong for anyone to act as if every black-skinned person was a potential criminal. I think we can all agree about that. So why, in the name of all that's holy, is it deemed OK to act as if every man is a potential rapist when the actual statistics show that it's actually five times less likely? Surely if it's wrong to assume the worst of someone based on the actions of 1% of their ethnic group, it's just as wrong to assume the worst of someone based on the actions of 0.2% of their sex?

What's the difference between "women are in danger and fear of being raped by men" and "people are in danger and fear of suffering crime at the hands of black people"? Why is one statement acceptable and the other not? If it's not OK for someone to be scared of black people, why is it OK for a woman to be scared of men? And to clarify for the benefit of the usual suspects who will try to act as if I'm justifying racism or something, I'm saying that neither should be acceptable.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You don't normally fork a repository
I've got a banner on the website for an app I make saying "Fork me on GitHub". I assure you I've never considered it as a sexual joke. That's just what the terminology is — I don't know of another word to use instead.

If someone is sniggering because it sounds a bit like Bum, I'd suggest that it's more about the mind of the beholder!

This makes me wonder if Adria was being a bit disingenuous with the twitter post in the first place, and it was more about point scoring than actual offense that she really took. If she really thought that the comment was sexual, then she must have thought that it was homosexual - since the comment was about a man, not a woman.

So if it's about combating the culture, I'm sure she's as aware as anyone that in a puerile/sexist culture that homosexuals are as unwanted and badly treated as women - if not more so. Most people reading the twitter post (and probably most people on this thread) presumed that the 'repo forking' comment was directed at a woman, until they read otherwise. Which would mean that, if her outrage was geniune, that she would have assumed that the man who made the comment was a fellow minority, and that he felt liberated enough to make a comment about the attractiveness of another man could in one sense be seen as a good, progressive thing (despite the circumstantial inappropriateness). None of which was the case though, since the comment wasn't sexual in the first place.

Now, honestly, I want to think the best of her. Maybe she misheard "fork that guy's repo" as "fork that girl's repo", and took something from the tone it was said. I don't know. It just doesn't sit comfortably with me that she chose to leave the gender ambiguous in the original twitter post, and I don't see how she wouldn't have known that most people would assume it was a sexist comment directed at a woman. ISTM that she wanted her readers to think that, even though the original comment wasn't that way, and even she did construe it as sexual.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is pretty much the exact mirror of the original post's circumstances, no?
Not until men are in as much danger and fear of being raped by women as women are of men. There is no exact mirror.
I think it pretty much comes down to issues surrounding a sense of unequal power. A set of facts that might sound parallel is still not, a lot of the time, taking place within an equal, balanced context.

The problem with your reasoning is that this starts off by assuming dogmatically that men have power and women don't, and then goes on to apply that dogma over the top of the facts of the individual case, which are that the power balance is reversed in this situation. It's objectifying the people involved by reducing them to one facet of their character (their sex) and ignoring all that makes them a particular individual in a particular situation. By that measure, it's sexist.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So cards on the table then: in the example cited (female staff "always" having sexual conversations in staff room, single male teacher is uncomfortable), is this sexual harassment, and what should happen?

Yes, it is sexual harassment. Reversing the genders of the harasser and the harassed doesn't make the situation exactly parallel, but that doesn't change what it is.

For the people who are having trouble understanding why it's not an exact parallel, let's try a thought experiment. Let's say a couple of kids on the playground are constantly getting bullied. They don't feel safe, because they aren't safe. They get tripped, their hats are yanked off their heads and thrown in the trash bin, they're pushed off the equipment. And suppose that, after weeks or months of this treatment, they finally decide to join forces and attack the #1 bully. It is, as far as anyone can see, a completely unprovoked attack. They manage to get a few licks in before the grownups intervene.

They are, of course, disciplined for fighting. As they should be.

But would you say that their ganging up on the bully is exactly parallel to what the bully was doing to them?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

I'd say that your example conflates 'all men everywhere' with one particular guy who is in a position of weakness and vulnerability because he's the only guy in the workplace, and who is not responsible for any shitty treatment that his female colleagues get elsewhere. Are the victims getting a few licks in at the bullies? No, they're taking it out on some poor smaller kid later, becoming bullies themselves. As Auden said:

I and the public know what all schoolchildren learn
Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For the people who are having trouble understanding why it's not an exact parallel, let's try a thought experiment. Let's say a couple of kids on the playground are constantly getting bullied. They don't feel safe, because they aren't safe. They get tripped, their hats are yanked off their heads and thrown in the trash bin, they're pushed off the equipment. And suppose that, after weeks or months of this treatment, they finally decide to join forces and attack the #1 bully. It is, as far as anyone can see, a completely unprovoked attack. They manage to get a few licks in before the grownups intervene.

They are, of course, disciplined for fighting. As they should be.

But would you say that their ganging up on the bully is exactly parallel to what the bully was doing to them?

Your analogy is just wrong. The real parallel is that these same bullied kids band together and beat up some arbitrary third person. In what sense does the fact that someone else was mean to them justify their violence?

--Tom Clune

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is pretty much the exact mirror of the original post's circumstances, no?
Not until men are in as much danger and fear of being raped by women as women are of men. There is no exact mirror.
I think it pretty much comes down to issues surrounding a sense of unequal power. A set of facts that might sound parallel is still not, a lot of the time, taking place within an equal, balanced context.
The problem with your reasoning is that this starts off by assuming dogmatically that men have power and women don't, and then goes on to apply that dogma over the top of the facts of the individual case, which are that the power balance is reversed in this situation. It's objectifying the people involved by reducing them to one facet of their character (their sex) and ignoring all that makes them a particular individual in a particular situation. By that measure, it's sexist.

Well, no, it doesn't assume that. Which is why I worded it in the way that I did, and not in the way that mousethief did.

Leorning Cniht pretty much hit upon this point already. I'm NOT prepared to say, dogmatically, that it's always the case in every situation that men have the power and women don't. I will say, however, that I suspect bastions of female power are a lot less frequent than bastions of male power.

Teaching is probably one of the few professions where there might be a shift. It's not only a question of numbers of course, but who gets the leadership positions. There are certainly are professions that have historically had a lot of female workers with predominantly male bosses.

[ 28. March 2013, 13:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This makes me wonder if Adria was being a bit disingenuous with the twitter post in the first place, and it was more about point scoring than actual offense that she really took.

<snip>

It just doesn't sit comfortably with me that she chose to leave the gender ambiguous in the original twitter post, and I don't see how she wouldn't have known that most people would assume it was a sexist comment directed at a woman. ISTM that she wanted her readers to think that, even though the original comment wasn't that way, and even she did construe it as sexual.

Given that she has a history of having a militant "feminist"* agenda in her interactions with others (men and women) in the tech community, I have my doubts, too. Frankly, I don't buy the "help, I'm being oppressed" BS she's selling - she decided to use a flimsy excuse to score some cheap points for her agenda, and it blew up in her face. Boo hoo. I give no quarter or excuse to the evil people threatening her with bodily harm, but I don't see where she deserves any sympathy beyond that, frankly. She picked a fight and got burned.

* I think her style and actions defame the term, but that's just me.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For the people who are having trouble understanding why it's not an exact parallel, let's try a thought experiment. Let's say a couple of kids on the playground are constantly getting bullied. They don't feel safe, because they aren't safe. They get tripped, their hats are yanked off their heads and thrown in the trash bin, they're pushed off the equipment. And suppose that, after weeks or months of this treatment, they finally decide to join forces and attack the #1 bully. It is, as far as anyone can see, a completely unprovoked attack. They manage to get a few licks in before the grownups intervene.

They are, of course, disciplined for fighting. As they should be.

But would you say that their ganging up on the bully is exactly parallel to what the bully was doing to them?
Your analogy is just wrong. The real parallel is that these same bullied kids band together and beat up some arbitrary third person. In what sense does the fact that someone else was mean to them justify their violence?

The question wasn't whether their violence was justified. The question was whether their violence was exactly parallel to the violence committed against them. And you didn't answer that question.

I was looking, not for an exact analogy, but for one with enough similarities that we might agree on a principal. I've usually found it more effective to find a point of agreement, and work from that towards points of disagreement.

The point of my analogy is that both past events and relative power differences can alter how we view a situation that is otherwise identical. Maybe I picked a lousy analogy. Maybe you could come up with a better one. But, on the principal I was trying to illustrate: do you agree that past events and relative power differences can alter how we view a situation that is otherwise identical?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry.

quote:
I've usually found it more effective to find a point of agreement, and work from that towards points of disagreement.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The point of my analogy is that both past events and relative power differences can alter how we view a situation that is otherwise identical.

Only where the same people are involved. Your analogy works because the bullied kids are ganging up to get their own back on the actual bully.

Unless you're saying that all men count as "the bully" and all women count as "the bullied", the analogy fails. And if you are saying that then it's an incredibly sexist and prejudiced thing to say.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry.

quote:
I've usually found it more effective to find a point of agreement, and work from that towards points of disagreement.

I initially thought this thread was in Hell. Which explains my first comment and does not change my comment about what I usually do.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The point of my analogy is that both past events and relative power differences can alter how we view a situation that is otherwise identical.
Only where the same people are involved. Your analogy works because the bullied kids are ganging up to get their own back on the actual bully.

Unless you're saying that all men count as "the bully" and all women count as "the bullied", the analogy fails.

I've already acknowledged that the analogy didn't work. So if you would, please, skip the analogy, and answer the question:

quote:
do you agree that past events and relative power differences can alter how we view a situation that is otherwise identical?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Yes they can, but you can't just assume that the power differences always lie the same way, because that would be sexist and inaccurate. The fact that AR managed to get one of the guys sacked is evidence for a rather different power balance in this case.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not until men are in as much danger and fear of being raped by women as women are of men. There is no exact mirror.
Ah yes, the old "all men are potential rapists" canard. It's bullshit. And prejudiced bullshit at that.

That's not what I said. But twist away. You clearly don't understand what is being said when someone says a woman is constantly in fear of being raped.

And how DARE anybody tell them they shouldn't be afraid? Good grief. "Well it's prejudiced to think of any given man that you don't know whether or not he's one of the potential rapists, so you shouldn't have any fears at all, ever, unless you know for a fact a man is a rapist."

That's just so fucked up.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But, on the principal I was trying to illustrate: do you agree that past events and relative power differences can alter how we view a situation that is otherwise identical?

Of course it matters. And, on the point I was trying to make to you, I think that your experience has mattered in the sense that it has clouded your judgment of the matter being discussed. The actual men involved here do not seem to have been doing anything particularly inappropriate -- they were having a silly private conversation that was overheard by someone who chose to take offense and inject herself into the situation in a way that resulted in one of these guys getting fired. That is a big and unfortunate human cost that was not justified by anything that the guys had done. Then, the piggish response of completely different people who chose to inject themselves into this situation resulted in another injustice being added to this sorry little show when the woman also got fired.

The thing that any disinterested party would be most impressed by is the massive injustice visited upon both of these people for no good reason. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

[ 28. March 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I've already acknowledged that the analogy didn't work. So if you would, please, skip the analogy, and answer the question:

I did in my first sentence. The answer was "only where the same people are involved".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You clearly don't understand what is being said when someone says a woman is constantly in fear of being raped.

Clearly it means that a woman is constantly in fear of being raped. Constantly. Which has to mean that any man she sees is a potential rapist, otherwise where does the fear come from?

quote:
And how DARE anybody tell them they shouldn't be afraid? Good grief. "Well it's prejudiced to think of any given man that you don't know whether or not he's one of the potential rapists, so you shouldn't have any fears at all, ever, unless you know for a fact a man is a rapist."

That's just so fucked up.

So I take it that if someone told you they were constantly afraid that any black person they see is going to mug them, you'd say that was perfectly fine? You wouldn't say that such an attitude is prejudiced? Furthermore, you'd say that trying to tell such a person that their attitude is prejudiced is "fucked up"?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

The thing that any disinterested party would be most impressed by is the massive injustice visited upon both of these people for no good reason. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

This, and the mechanisms used to create the injustice , were an intent of my OP.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You clearly don't understand what is being said when someone says a woman is constantly in fear of being raped.
Clearly it means that a woman is constantly in fear of being raped. Constantly. Which has to mean that any man she sees is a potential rapist, otherwise where does the fear come from?

It's because she doesn't KNOW if he's a potential rapist or not. There is no way to tell by looking if a man is going to rape you or not. So you have to be constantly on your guard. Not being in that position, it is difficult for a man to "get it." That is the meaning of privilege.

I'm not going to answer your shit-stirring race questions, so give up.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not going to answer your shit-stirring race questions, so give up.

Mousethief, Marvin's race analogy seems quite precise to me. I think it is intended to create more light than heat.

--Tom clune

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You clearly don't understand what is being said when someone says a woman is constantly in fear of being raped.
Clearly it means that a woman is constantly in fear of being raped. Constantly. Which has to mean that any man she sees is a potential rapist, otherwise where does the fear come from?
It's because she doesn't KNOW if he's a potential rapist or not. There is no way to tell by looking if a man is going to rape you or not. So you have to be constantly on your guard. Not being in that position, it is difficult for a man to "get it." That is the meaning of privilege.

As a woman who doesn' t live in constant fear of being raped*, I find a certain irony in seeing this comment made by a man. [Roll Eyes]

*FWIW I live in a country where the general culture is more disrespectful of women than in many other parts of the developed world (think DSK)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's because she doesn't KNOW if he's a potential rapist or not. There is no way to tell by looking if a man is going to rape you or not. So you have to be constantly on your guard.

So the starting assumption is that a man may be a rapist, for no better reason than he's a man.

That is sexist in the same way that starting from the assumption that a black person may be a criminal is racist.

quote:
I'm not going to answer your shit-stirring race questions, so give up.

Hitting a little close to home, are they?

I'm not shit-stirring. I'm using an example of stereotyping that we all agree is wrong to show why the stereotyping currently under discussion is also wrong. You can ignore me if you want, but that won't make my words untrue.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
they were having a silly private conversation that was overheard by someone who chose to take offense and inject herself into the situation in a way that resulted in one of these guys getting fired.

The notion of a conversation being 'private' is an interesting one. They were having a conversation, and the intended audience was each other.

But regardless of the particular content of the conversation, I think any smart person at a large professional event has to take into account that there are other people around. You and your friend aren't kicking back in your house on the weekend. You're not even sitting in your hotel room. You're sitting in the middle of a crowd of people.

I'm not saying it's an offence that should get you fired, but it sure as hell is mighty dumb to ignore the fact that there are a large number of people within hearing distance of this 'private conversation', and you've never met most of them, and you certainly don't know them well enough to share nudge nudge wink wink jokes with them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's because she doesn't KNOW if he's a potential rapist or not. There is no way to tell by looking if a man is going to rape you or not. So you have to be constantly on your guard.
So the starting assumption is that a man may be a rapist, for no better reason than he's a man.

It's not about being sexist or not being sexist. It's about not getting raped. Either you are purposely not acknowledging how horrific rape is, or you seem to think that because not all men are rapists or potential rapists, a woman should never feel like she's in danger.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Very little sexual harassment involves a threat or fear of rape.
Very little sexual harrassment may involve overt threats of rape, but rape is precisely what it's about.

No, it's not this.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's also about being treated like a thing, not a person with your own rights and boundaries.

It's this.

If you're arguing that there is a continuum of objectification of women, and that rape is at the extreme end of that continuum, I wouldn't disagree (I'm not sure it's quite accurate, but let's work with it.)

To turn that around and argue that, therefore, every act of objectification of women is about rape diminishes the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness. It's like saying that every punch or slap is about murder, and it's just not true.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And, on the point I was trying to make to you, I think that your experience has mattered in the sense that it has clouded your judgment of the matter being discussed.

Do you think it's possible that your lack of experience might have affected your judgment of the matter being discussed?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's because she doesn't KNOW if he's a potential rapist or not. There is no way to tell by looking if a man is going to rape you or not. So you have to be constantly on your guard.
So the starting assumption is that a man may be a rapist, for no better reason than he's a man.

That is sexist in the same way that starting from the assumption that a black person may be a criminal is racist.

quote:
I'm not going to answer your shit-stirring race questions, so give up.
Hitting a little close to home, are they?

I'm not shit-stirring. I'm using an example of stereotyping that we all agree is wrong to show why the stereotyping currently under discussion is also wrong. You can ignore me if you want, but that won't make my words untrue.

There's a question to be answered here, Mousethief. I'm absolutely certain that Marvin isn't minimising the traumatic after-effects of rape. Being mugged/assaulted at knife-point by multiple assailants isn't a bowl of cherries either.

I think projecting your fears of a single incident onto those who superficially resemble your attackers in subsequent (non-threatening) encounters is actually very likely, and not exactly controversial. Some war veterans I've known had visceral hatred for the Japanese till the day they died. Listening to their stories, it was entirely understandable - but having met Japanese people from subsequent generations, I couldn't agree with their view.

So, there's a difference there, between understanding why someone is likely to react to a certain set of trigger factors, doing something to ameliorate them, and accepting them as how the world works. In this case, it's not correct to assume that every man a woman rape-victim meets is another potential rapist.

[ 28. March 2013, 17:05: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And, on the point I was trying to make to you, I think that your experience has mattered in the sense that it has clouded your judgment of the matter being discussed.
Do you think it's possible that your lack of experience might have affected your judgment of the matter being discussed?

No, failing to be traumatized in a particular way is not generally seen as impairing one's judgment. I am not unsympathetic to your response, but that is not enough to make it a reasonable one.

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In this case, it's not correct to assume that every man a woman rape-victim meets is another potential rapist.

Hatred of Japanese people and fear for one's safety aren't even close. Are you saying women shouldn't be careful? Shouldn't park somewhere safe, for instance, shouldn't take precautions against rape when possible? If that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying that I'm not, or vice versa? If it is wise for a woman to take precautions to avoid being raped, then that's because she doesn't know which men are potential rapists and which are not. Which is not to say all men are potential rapists, as you and Marvin want to conflate it.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And, on the point I was trying to make to you, I think that your experience has mattered in the sense that it has clouded your judgment of the matter being discussed.
Do you think it's possible that your lack of experience might have affected your judgment of the matter being discussed?
No, failing to be traumatized in a particular way is not generally seen as impairing one's judgment. I am not unsympathetic to your response, but that is not enough to make it a reasonable one.

Who said I was traumatized? Frustrated, irritated, angry, yes, all of those. But not traumatized.

And if I had been seriously injured, why would that make your opinion more reasonable than mine? If a zookeeper who worked with big cats were to talk about their experience with that, and about what to expect when working with lions or tigers, and someone else were to talk about it based on having been a visitor at the zoo and read a couple of articles on Wikipedia, would the fact that the zookeeper had once been injured by a lion make their opinion less reasonable, less well informed, or less worthy of taking into account than the person who is talking out of ignorance?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I give up.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hatred of Japanese people and fear for one's safety aren't even close. Are you saying women shouldn't be careful?

Yeah, I'm guessing that you're not a veteran of the Pacific theatre.

Say you're in a bar or a restaurant, and a bunch of Japanese tourists wander in, speaking at the tops of their voices because they're excited to be in a different country. What do you, the veteran see?

Given that both war and rape (amongst other experiences) are traumatic enough to often produce symptoms of PTSD, there's nothing wrong with cutting folk slack and treating them well. Because that's kind. So why is it more reasonable to accommodate the fears of a rape victim than the fears of someone who's been through another traumatic experience?

And as to whether a woman should be careful not to be raped? I kind of thought the onus was on men not to rape her.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In this case, it's not correct to assume that every man a woman rape-victim meets is another potential rapist.
Hatred of Japanese people and fear for one's safety aren't even close.

Which is why Marvin's example raises some questions. Imagine the discussion between you and him was about race - I've just replaced the relevant nouns:

quote:
Originally posted by alternativemousethief:
It's because he/she doesn't KNOW if the black person is a potential mugger or not. There is no way to tell by looking if a black man is going to mug you or not. So you have to be constantly on your guard. Not being in that position, it is difficult for a non-white to "get it." That is the meaning of privilege.

It's not about being racist or not being racist. It's about not getting mugged. Either you are purposely not acknowledging how horrific being mugged is, or you seem to think that because not all blacks are muggers or potential muggers, a white person should never feel like they're in danger.

If you were making that argument about race, I would feel incredibly uncomfortable about the above. Now, your using it about gender doesn't make me uncomfortable in the same way, but Marvin's question has made me wonder why that's the case. It seems fairly analogous.

I don't think he's shit-stirring, I think he has a genuine point. If his analogy fails somewhere and he's wrong, I too would like to understand why, which is why I don't think you can dismiss it so readily.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So why is it more reasonable to accommodate the fears of a rape victim than the fears of someone who's been through another traumatic experience?

Certainly for the PTSD veteran, it is reasonable to not excoriate him for his fears.*

quote:
And as to whether a woman should be careful not to be raped? I kind of thought the onus was on men not to rape her.

It is indeed. But I'm not talking about onus. I'm talking about individual women making decisions to make themselves safer (or at least feel safer).

____
*And let me add that the whole problem here is excoriating people for their fears. "You're being sexist for being afraid for your safety when you are in a place where you can't escape and nobody can hear you scream and a man approaches you. Your fear is tantamount to treating all men as if they were potential rapists." THAT is the attitude I am arguing against.

[ 28. March 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

And, sorry, GPR, non-whites don't have "privilege" in our culture.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Very little sexual harassment involves a threat or fear of rape.
Very little sexual harrassment may involve overt threats of rape, but rape is precisely what it's about.
No, it's not this.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's also about being treated like a thing, not a person with your own rights and boundaries.
It's this.

If you're arguing that there is a continuum of objectification of women, and that rape is at the extreme end of that continuum, I wouldn't disagree (I'm not sure it's quite accurate, but let's work with it.)

To turn that around and argue that, therefore, every act of objectification of women is about rape diminishes the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness. It's like saying that every punch or slap is about murder, and it's just not true.

No, because I did not say that every act of sexual harrassment was equivalent to rape, I said that it's always about rape. When one person sexually harasses another then, regardless of whether the perpetrator is or is not conscious of the fact, they are asserting their right to invade that person's boundaries. The power dynamic underpinning that is the dynamic of rape. This is why it is unusual, but not impossible, for women to sexually harass men.

I accept that there are grey areas where no harassment is intended - a person or persons larking about and another person (because of a painful personal history) feeling intimidated - but in my view, most harassment is deliberate. And no, I don't think that the woman in this particular case was (initially) being harassed. As I said upthread, she was entitled to take the view that the guys were being prats, but the photo was a bad idea.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, because I did not say that every act of sexual harrassment was equivalent to rape, I said that it's always about rape. When one person sexually harasses another then, regardless of whether the perpetrator is or is not conscious of the fact, they are asserting their right to invade that person's boundaries. The power dynamic underpinning that is the dynamic of rape. This is why it is unusual, but not impossible, for women to sexually harass men.

And that's the language that I have a problem with. It's "about" rape in the same sense that a slap in the face is "about" murder. Assault and murder have the same "underpinning power dynamic" too, but that doesn't make it reasonable to use the word murder in the discussion of a punch in the face.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
*And let me add that the whole problem here is excoriating people for their fears. "You're being sexist for being afraid for your safety when you are in a place where you can't escape and nobody can hear you scream and a man approaches you. Your fear is tantamount to treating all men as if they were potential rapists." THAT is the attitude I am arguing against.

And rightly so.

How much accommodation should I, and the rest of society, make to take these fears into account as we go about our daily lives? How much accommodation should I expect if I have those fears myself?

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, because I did not say that every act of sexual harrassment was equivalent to rape, I said that it's always about rape. When one person sexually harasses another then, regardless of whether the perpetrator is or is not conscious of the fact, they are asserting their right to invade that person's boundaries. The power dynamic underpinning that is the dynamic of rape. This is why it is unusual, but not impossible, for women to sexually harass men.

And that's the language that I have a problem with. It's "about" rape in the same sense that a slap in the face is "about" murder. Assault and murder have the same "underpinning power dynamic" too, but that doesn't make it reasonable to use the word murder in the discussion of a punch in the face.

I don't think those are exact parallels. Sexual harassment is an expression of domination and/or a threat (if it isn't either of those, then it isn't harassment). A slap may or may not be a threat. It might be, for example, a defence of a boundary - as in response to sexual harassment.

If the context of the slap is one of phsyical domination or threat, then, yes, it is ultimately about murder. That's what people being regularly 'slapped about' leads to.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

If the context of the slap is one of phsyical domination or threat, then, yes, it is ultimately about murder. That's what people being regularly 'slapped about' leads to.

I think we are more or less agreeing, fundamentally, but we're speaking completely different languages. I claim mine is English. [Big Grin]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
How much accommodation should I, and the rest of society, make to take these fears into account as we go about our daily lives? How much accommodation should I expect if I have those fears myself?

The question is not so much accommodation as prevention. Until society stops blaming rape victims, stops coddling convicted rapists ("oh those poor boys" as in the Steubenville case), starts actually convicting rapists, takes accusations seriously, requires first responders to carry and use rape kits -- in short, until our society stops being a rape culture and starts siding with women instead of with rapists, talk about "accommodation" is like putting a band-aid (adhesive plaster) on an amputation.

Until then, men can do things to try to avoid making women feel threatened or cornered. As a simple example, take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a woman.

And stop blaming women for being fearful. That's HUGE and it's a big problem on this very thread.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And, sorry, GPR, non-whites don't have "privilege" in our culture.

Way to ignore the point.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Until then, men can do things to try to avoid making women feel threatened or cornered. As a simple example, take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a woman.

I genuinely don't see how this is different to saying a black person should take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a white person, so as to not make the white person feel threatened or cornered.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And, sorry, GPR, non-whites don't have "privilege" in our culture.

Sure, then ignore that sentence and deal with the rest. The situations are similar. Whites have historically had more privilege than blacks, men than women. There's still a question that needs answering

If I may have a go myself, having had a little time to think about it, I think the answer has something to do with the situation, context, culture etc. that one finds oneself in.

If someone was travelling through a black neighbourhood with known gang culture, we wouldn't say they're racist for being a bit careful about getting attacked, or being wary if they see a group of young black men approaching them.

If they were at a meeting of the black lawyers' association, and they acted with the same caution and suspicion, we'd say they were being racist and prejudiced.

If a young woman takes precautions to make sure she's not travelling down dark alleys late at night alone, or crosses the road to avoid a group of men late at night, we wouldn't say that she's sexist.

If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.

That's where I think I'm not comfortable with some of what you've said. Caution and suspicion is totally understandable, but only if it's proportional to the specific context they are in. So it's about being wary of cultures that have developed within certain group of people. Whether the group of people are black, white, men, women, blondes, young, old, nerds, jocks, or whatever, the issue isn't that it's that group who are defined by some physical characteristic, the issue is the culture that has evolved, and any caution that one should take should relate to the culture, not the gender or race or whatever else of people in that culture. To assume that 'men' are the problem is simplistic and wrong, and I'd suggest even sexist. It's certain men in certain groups and cultures.

So if the tech culture is historically sexist, then I think it's totally reasonable for women to be cautious within that culture. I doubt there is literally a rape culture within tech (as in, people disproportionately get raped at work in techie industries). But I totally understand Josephine's cautiousness given her experience. But if the cautiousness is about men in general, rather than specifically the men in her work culture, then I'd suggest that cautiousness is misplaced.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If a young woman takes precautions to make sure she's not travelling down dark alleys late at night alone, or crosses the road to avoid a group of men late at night, we wouldn't say that she's sexist.

If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.
... Caution and suspicion is totally understandable, but only if it's proportional to the specific context they are in.

But context is not an objectively fixed thing. If your apparently unreasonably suspicious young woman had recently been raped, or had a friend who was raped, or came from a culture where rape was relatively common, then her context would be different from that of the man offended by her fear.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If a young woman takes precautions to make sure she's not travelling down dark alleys late at night alone, or crosses the road to avoid a group of men late at night, we wouldn't say that she's sexist.

If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.
... Caution and suspicion is totally understandable, but only if it's proportional to the specific context they are in.
But context is not an objectively fixed thing. If your apparently unreasonably suspicious young woman had recently been raped, or had a friend who was raped, or came from a culture where rape was relatively common, then her context would be different from that of the man offended by her fear.

Yeah, sure. I think that is totally understandable.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Until then, men can do things to try to avoid making women feel threatened or cornered. As a simple example, take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a woman.

You do understand that most rapes are not by strangers, right? Yes, the violent predator lurking in the bushes happens, but most rapes are very much like the Steubenville case - men who think that because they've bought dinner for a woman, or because she's agreed to come into their home for coffee, or because she got drunk with them, that they are entitled to use her body for sex.

That is the "rape culture". Almost nobody agrees that it is acceptable for a stranger to grab a woman on the street and force her to have sex. The societal problem is precisely that a significant number of men think they are entitled to sex because they bought dinner, or because they're on the football team, so the cheerleaders are their property or whatever. That is the rape culture, and it really has nothing to do with strangers in dark alleys.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If a young woman takes precautions to make sure she's not travelling down dark alleys late at night alone, or crosses the road to avoid a group of men late at night, we wouldn't say that she's sexist.

If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.

Doesn't this analysis implicitly buy into the idea that rape is "a masked stranger jumps out of a bush", something that's statistically one of the lower probability types of sexual assault. The basic premise of GPR's analysis is that wealthy men don't rape or that men never rape anyone they know personally. This seems dangerously close to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.

[x-post with Leorning Cniht]

[ 28. March 2013, 22:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If a young woman takes precautions to make sure she's not travelling down dark alleys late at night alone, or crosses the road to avoid a group of men late at night, we wouldn't say that she's sexist.

If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.
Doesn't this analysis implicitly buy into the idea that rape is "a masked stranger jumps out of a bush", something that's statistically one of the lower probability types of sexual assault. The basic premise of GPR's analysis is that wealthy men don't rape or that men never rape anyone they know personally. This seems dangerously close to Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comment.

[x-post with Leorning Cniht]

No, really, it doesn't.

It just suggests that there is some kind of reasonable place that exists between 'suspect everyone' and 'suspect no-one'. I think there's plenty of debate to be had as to where that place is, and as QLib pointed out, whether that place is different for different people.

As Leorning pointed out, most rapes are by known people, not strangers. That's part of the problem - it's hard to be prepared for that. I, however, don't think that the solution is to see a rapist behind the eyes of every man you meet, any more than it is to see a mugger behind every black person you meet.

I'm not sure what I think about Mousethief's suggestions about lifts etc... Maybe... but I'm not sure how helpful that actually is, and whether it might have other, negative side effects. I think that precautions that individuals make to protect themselves are definitely beneficial - making sure your drink can't be spiked, not going back to someone's house when you've just met them, and so on. Those are the things that appear to make a bigger difference.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Until then, men can do things to try to avoid making women feel threatened or cornered. As a simple example, take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a woman.
I genuinely don't see how this is different to saying a black person should take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a white person, so as to not make the white person feel threatened or cornered.

Our culture coddles black criminals? Blames white victims of black crime? Doesn't take people seriously who report that they were mugged by a black man? What holler are you living in?

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You do understand that most rapes are not by strangers, right?

You do understand that that's entirely beside the point, right? That being raped by a stranger is still being raped, and something to be shunned and avoided? That it is still a fear, even though it's not the most prevalent form of rape?

-----

GPR, my point with the elevator example wasn't about making huge differences. That came in the first part, changing our society. The elevator thing is just a way to potentially one woman feel a little safer. If you think that's a bad idea, then I don't know what to say to you. It seems rather callous though.

[ 28. March 2013, 23:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
GPR, my point with the elevator example wasn't about making huge differences. That came in the first part, changing our society. The elevator thing is just a way to potentially one woman feel a little safer. If you think that's a bad idea, then I don't know what to say to you. It seems rather callous though.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. I honestly don't know. If I really thought it would make a difference I'd do it, and I'd definitely think about it next time the possibility happens.

The bad side effects I mentioned are more simply that it seems to be separating men and women so that they can't interact. Ironically probably the only time that I've been in a lift alone with a woman that I don't know in the last decade was about a week ago, and we had a brief but pleasant conversation. You know, the kind of conversation with a stranger that brightens up your day a bit, even if it's just talking about the weather or your kids or whatever.

And if we're looking to create a society where women don't feel threatened by men, then is the solution to reduce those interactions, or to try to make them positive?

Maybe you're suggesting that we only minimise one-on-one alone interactions, which doesn't seem a massive price to pay.

But as I said, honestly, I don't know. You've made me think though [Smile]

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Until then, men can do things to try to avoid making women feel threatened or cornered. As a simple example, take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a woman.
I genuinely don't see how this is different to saying a black person should take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a white person, so as to not make the white person feel threatened or cornered.
Our culture coddles black criminals? Blames white victims of black crime? Doesn't take people seriously who report that they were mugged by a black man? What holler are you living in?

Uh, MSNBC?

Seriously, there's no way I'm going to wait for the next elevator in that scenario unless the woman seems visibly agitated by my presence there.

Frankly, if a woman sees every man with a penis as a potential rapist, then she needs to take self-defense courses, carry some mace (or, God forbid, a gun), and/or avoid being alone with men entirely. I have the deepest of sympathies for any woman who's gone through the horror of rape or abuse (I have family in that situation); but it's not at all practical for me to live my life assuming that every woman I meet has been a victim of sexual assault. I'm not going to rape anyone, and I'm not going to live as if I'm a potential rapist: if anything, that would arouse more suspicion than living normally.

In my mind, the race analogy fails because while one almost never hears of women raping men, one often hears of people of all races carrying out heinous crimes. One ought to be equally suspicious of white potential muggers as black.

But I would also say that a fewer percentage of men are rapists than are muggers, so one might as well view all strangers as potential muggers if they look like they have some muscle or a pocket in which to store a knife. But we would typically call that paranoia, no?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
One ought to be equally suspicious of white potential muggers as black.

It was widely reported some time ago that the vast majority of muggings in London were carried out by young black men. By contrast, the vast majority of burglaries were carried out by young white men.

So, statistically, one should be much more suspicious of the black man walking down the street, and of the white man hanging around in the alley behind your house.

It remains true that a young man of any race is more likely to steal the woman's cellphone than her virtue.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
One ought to be equally suspicious of white potential muggers as black.
It was widely reported some time ago that the vast majority of muggings in London were carried out by young black men. By contrast, the vast majority of burglaries were carried out by young white men.

So, statistically, one should be much more suspicious of the black man walking down the street, and of the white man hanging around in the alley behind your house.

It remains true that a young man of any race is more likely to steal the woman's cellphone than her virtue.

My point was that whereas both/all races are equally capable of violent crime; all men are capable of rape, but women are generally perceived as incapable*.

Thus, the race analogy fails (in my mind, at least).
-----------

*I've heard of women raping men, but I can't quite figure out how they would do so: unless they are sodomizing them with a foreign object?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

*I've heard of women raping men, but I can't quite figure out how they would do so: unless they are sodomizing them with a foreign object?

If this is a serious question, then the answer is that the activity you describe is very rare indeed. Most cases of woman-on-man rape are, to my knowledge, either normal vaginal intercourse, with the man either forced or under duress to perform (and yes, these cases are pretty rare, too) or the rape of a man by another man, with the woman as an accomplice.

Whether either of these qualifies as the crime of rape or not depends on your jurisdiction.

(Possibly more common still is the statutory rape of a male child by a female teacher. Again, whether teacher/teen sex is "rape" is jurisdiction-dependent.)

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I genuinely don't see how this is different to saying a black person should take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a white person, so as to not make the white person feel threatened or cornered.

You think that doesn't happen? If a young black man makes a white person feel threatened or cornered, bad things happen. Just ask Trayvon Martin's family. Young black men are often told not to do anything to make a white person feel threatened or cornered. Especially if the white person is a large man or a small woman.

It happens all the time. Some while back, a young white woman I know was working at an after-school program in a black neighborhood, when it came to her attention that the reason so few young teenaged boys were coming to the program was that she was teaching there. The boys had been warned against being there when she was there because of what history and experience told them could happen in such situations.

It's not that any and every young white woman is going to mistake any friendliness for assault, and result in the boy being beaten up by her white male friends. But it's impossible for the boys to know which young white women are safe to interact with. And some of the boys are told, or decide on their own, that the risk of trusting the wrong white woman is too great to risk trusting any white woman.

That doesn't mean that every white woman is dangerous in that way. It means that it's impossible to tell which white women are dangerous in that way.

Similarly, it's impossible for women to tell which men are dangerous. This is short. Maybe it would help you understand.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have the deepest of sympathies for any woman who's gone through the horror of rape or abuse (I have family in that situation); but it's not at all practical for me to live my life assuming that every woman I meet has been a victim of sexual assault.

You're right. It would be inconvenient for you to assume that every woman you meet has been a victim of sexual assault, since it's only one in five.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QUOTE]You're right. It would be inconvenient for you to assume that every woman you meet has been a victim of sexual assault, since it's only one in five.

I don't treat the women whom I interact with any different than I treat the men I interact with: I do my best to treat all people pretty much the same regardless of race or gender.

Forgive me, but I find the above implication (that treating women the same as men makes me into a convenience-seeking asshole) to be ridiculous. Should I never get on the elevator alone with anyone?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I genuinely don't see how this is different to saying a black person should take the next elevator instead of getting into an elevator alone with a white person, so as to not make the white person feel threatened or cornered.

Given the reality of which colour has more harmed which, black people should avoid elevators with white people for their own safety. But then, own continents didn't work, so...

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QUOTE]You're right. It would be inconvenient for you to assume that every woman you meet has been a victim of sexual assault, since it's only one in five.
I don't treat the women whom I interact with any different than I treat the men I interact with: I do my best to treat all people pretty much the same regardless of race or gender.

Forgive me, but I find the above implication (that treating women the same as men makes me into a convenience-seeking asshole) to be ridiculous. Should I never get on the elevator alone with anyone?

I don't know. I didn't notice where you said that you treat women the same as men. I noticed where you said it wasn't practical to treat women as if they had been victims of rape, and where you spoke of the horror of rape. I found the juxtaposition odd, given the large proportion of women are in fact survivors of rape.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, because I did not say that every act of sexual harrassment was equivalent to rape, I said that it's always about rape. When one person sexually harasses another then, regardless of whether the perpetrator is or is not conscious of the fact, they are asserting their right to invade that person's boundaries. The power dynamic underpinning that is the dynamic of rape. This is why it is unusual, but not impossible, for women to sexually harass men.

And that's the language that I have a problem with. It's "about" rape in the same sense that a slap in the face is "about" murder. Assault and murder have the same "underpinning power dynamic" too, but that doesn't make it reasonable to use the word murder in the discussion of a punch in the face.

This. Absolutely.

There's a massive category error involved in saying that these things are 'about' the worst example on the scale. Assault and murder are both about violence, not 'about murder'. And rape is at the top end of the scale of results of unwelcome sexual attention. That doesn't make all forms of unwelcome sexual attention 'about' rape.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QUOTE]You're right. It would be inconvenient for you to assume that every woman you meet has been a victim of sexual assault, since it's only one in five.
I don't treat the women whom I interact with any different than I treat the men I interact with: I do my best to treat all people pretty much the same regardless of race or gender.

Forgive me, but I find the above implication (that treating women the same as men makes me into a convenience-seeking asshole) to be ridiculous. Should I never get on the elevator alone with anyone?
I don't know. I didn't notice where you said that you treat women the same as men. I noticed where you said it wasn't practical to treat women as if they had been victims of rape, and where you spoke of the horror of rape. I found the juxtaposition odd, given the large proportion of women are in fact survivors of rape.

A large number of them are in fact survivors of some form of sexual assault, based on your own links.

Now I'm going to be accused of minimising the seriousness of sexual assault or attempted rape in a minute. Let me clear, I'm not. But we do seem to love throwing this rape word around a heck of a lot.

If I took a statistic that said 20% of people had experienced an assault or attempted assault of some kind and started to referring to how many people had experienced 'murder', you'd all look at me funny.

I'm all for discussing just how damn serious the statistics are for the whole range of sexually related negative experiences of women. But stop using 'rape' as a magic trigger word. If every single thing that a man does to a woman is 'rape', then you simply have no scale of severity to work with. You have no scale of punishment, and you have no way of recognising that being held down and forcibly penetrated is STILL likely to be considerably more traumatic for a woman than having an ugly man leer at her in a bar.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And here's something else I want to say, which I actually think I'm in a fairly good place to say because for my own experiences, there is never a woman involved.

Not every unwelcome sexual advance is 'rape' or even remotely 'about' it. People don't get together and have sex by wearing little signs around their neck saying 'please approach me, I want intercourse'. They do it far more obliquely than that. They do it by a series of flirtations and signals.

If someone comes on to you and you're not interested, that is NOT 'about rape' in any sane meaning. It is about them being interested and you not being interested. It's only a problem if you convey your disinterest fairly clearly and they don't back off.

Fairly clearly means what it says, by the way. If you playfully dismiss them, that can easily be interpreted as play, not as dismissal. Far too many people don't disengage because they think there's something 'impolite' about making damn clear that things are not going to continue onto the other person's hoped for conclusion.

Who knows, maybe in the case of women they're culturally conditioned to thinking that they have let men think they're in with a chance, or that it's rude to to flatly say no.

But for my part, I've certainly had guys tell me that they're not interested despite my pinings, and I've also had to flatly tell guys that I'm not putting out for them. It's a problem when someone doesn't take No for an answer, but first you have to tell them No.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A large number of them are in fact survivors of some form of sexual assault, based on your own links.

Sorry. I should have said "rape or attempted rape":

quote:
Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point ... The researchers defined rape as completed forced penetration, forced penetration facilitated by drugs or alcohol, or attempted forced penetration.

[/qb]

Which is not the same has having an ugly man leer at you in a bar.

Look, I'm sorry if you don't like the term "rape culture." I understand thinking it is misleading. But it's the term that we have. Like homophobia. When people want to argue that they're not afraid of gays, so there's no such thing as homophobia, they're kinda missing the point. And it's the same with the term "rape culture." That is the term that's used to describe a culture in which it's acceptable for men to violate women's boundaries, and when women get blamed both when their boundaries are violated ("she was asking for it") and when they object to or attempt to prevent boundary violations. It isn't just tossing the word "rape" around to make men feel bad.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I don't know. I didn't notice where you said that you treat women the same as men. I noticed where you said it wasn't practical to treat women as if they had been victims of rape, and where you spoke of the horror of rape. I found the juxtaposition odd, given the large proportion of women are in fact survivors of rape.

Well, if I'm aware of a co-worker or acquaintance that is a survivor of rape or sexual assault, then I am absolutely sensitive to that and will (to the best of my ability) act accordingly. As I said, I do have the deepest of sympathy for anyone who has gone through that horrible ordeal.

But at the same time I have to decide how to act towards everyone else: I can treat women the same as I do men or I can treat them all as potential rape survivors and walk on eggshells, always take a different elevator, make sure I'm never alone with them, make sure they're always between me and the door, cross to the other side of the street when I see one approaching etc.

Practically speaking, most of the women I meet in my line of work would not want to be treated different because of their gender, regardless of statistics concerning rape in this country. One hint that I'm not taking them seriously and our working relationship is damaged (the same holds true for the men I find myself working with).

If taking that position is wrong, would you please explain to me what is right? Do I treat women the same or different?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

For those wanting more info about statistics, fallout from sexual assault, try RAINN.org Start with the "Get Info" section. Lots of info there about assaults on both men and women.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
If taking that position is wrong, would you please explain to me what is right? Do I treat women the same or different?

Should I avoid getting in a lift alone with a man too? It's very possible that that man is also the victim of rape or sexual abuse. The statistics are lower, but there are still plenty of men who have been through that, and for all I know, the man next to me in the lift is one of them.

If not, why not?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

ISTM there are two factors at play. First is wanting to change the culture, and the second is being aware of what an individual's history might be. And those two things might sometimes be in conflict.

We might agree that the best thing to change rape culture positively is for men not to get in lifts with women. I'm not convinced of that yet, but let's assume that is the case.

Now, for a woman who's been raped and would feel in danger, not getting in the lift would be a kind thing to do.

However, now imagine another woman, who's never been raped, but has rejection issues. Her father, husband and other men have abandoned her, and she feels unwanted and unattractive. Then she sees a man consciously avoid getting in a lift with her. Is she going to think "that's okay, he was just avoiding getting in a lift with me, in case I was the victim of rape", or is she going to feel even more rejected - "what's so wrong with me that he can't even bear to get in a lift with me?"

I just think there are lots of factors at play in situations like these, and that a simple cover-all solution is too simplistic.

Simply being conscious of other people, and doing your best to do what it seems they'd appreciate appears to me to be the best course of action. We might get it wrong sometimes, but that happens, and I don't think there's some magic solution that can fix that for every situation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We might agree that the best thing to change rape culture positively is for men not to get in lifts with women. I'm not convinced of that yet, but let's assume that is the case.

No, that's not the point of that. That won't change rape culture a bit, nor is it intended to. You missed the point.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Our culture coddles black criminals? Blames white victims of black crime? Doesn't take people seriously who report that they were mugged by a black man? What holler are you living in?

That's got nothing to do with this. If the way society treats rape victims is wrong then that is what needs to change, not the way it treats all men. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We might agree that the best thing to change rape culture positively is for men not to get in lifts with women. I'm not convinced of that yet, but let's assume that is the case.
No, that's not the point of that. That won't change rape culture a bit, nor is it intended to. You missed the point.

Okay, I re-read your post and see that it's a temporary measure until society does change. Cool, I get it now.

But that's the third time that you've quoted/responded to the least important, incidental part of a post I've made, but not the main point I was making. For whatever reason, despite things being ever so clear to you, they are murkier and more nuanced for me and others. Sorry if that's frustrating you, but I'd really appreciate some other responses to points I've raised!

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Sorry, second, not third. I thought I should just check and I'd misremembered.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And it's the same with the term "rape culture." That is the term that's used to describe a culture in which it's acceptable for men to violate women's boundaries, and when women get blamed both when their boundaries are violated ("she was asking for it") and when they object to or attempt to prevent boundary violations. It isn't just tossing the word "rape" around to make men feel bad.

I agree with every word of this. It's just that when things like treating all men as potential rapists or saying that violating a woman's boundaries includes getting into the same elevator as her are included I start having a problem with it.

[ 29. March 2013, 08:13: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not every unwelcome sexual advance is 'rape' or even remotely 'about' it.

I think that some scodes of conduct define any unwelcome sexual advance as harassment - but, like you, I cannot agree with that definition; genuine misunderstandings happen.

I've just looked up the legal definition, which in the UK anyway, now seems to include sexual discrimination. Although sexual discrimination is obviously wrong, I'm not keen on broadening the definition of harassment in that way.

So when I'm talking about sexual harassment, I'm assuming we're talking about sexual approaches which are either assumed for no good (sane, sensible) reason to be welcome or where the perpetrator is completely indifferent as to whether or not the approach will be welcome. And I still say that that is always about rape.

By way of an analogy, lets look back at slavery, as it was. Not everything that happened to slaves was terrible. Some were treated kindly, some less kindly. Some might be beaten, flogged, hanged, but others might only get a mild slap or a word of reproof. The thing is, though, in those latter cases, the bottom line was "I can do what I like to you - you have no rights." Every aspect of slavery - even the kindly acts - was about that.

Sexual harassment - in most Western countries, anyway - is different, because women do have rights, but the bottom line of all sexual harassment is "I would if I could". That applies even if the perpetrator is "just having a bit of fun" and doesn't really mean it. Because the fact is that it has been really meant often enough for it to be irrelevant whether any one individual means it or not. It's still not actual rape, of course - and nobody is saying it is - but rape is the bottom line.

That doesn't make all men rapists, but it does make all perpetrators of sexual harassment proto-rapists. And although only one in five women may have experienced actual sexual assault, I believe that most women have experienced some form of sexual harassment at some time in their lives.

40% of women in London have been subject to sexual harassment in a public place. In Coventry, it's as high as 60%. And that's just in public.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
We might agree that the best thing to change rape culture positively is for men not to get in lifts with women. I'm not convinced of that yet, but let's assume that is the case.

No. But what might be necessary is, if a woman gets off an elevator when a man gets on, if other people did not respond by saying, "Sheesh, what's wrong with her? Does she think every man is a rapist?" or "If she's getting off the lift because he's a man, she's a sexist pig, too." Because those responses -- which often come from otherwise good, decent men who would never willfully cross a woman's boundaries -- are also part of rape culture. Folks who say those kinds of things are not violating her boundaries, but they are insisting that she doesn't have the right to set her own boundaries.

quote:
Simply being conscious of other people, and doing your best to do what it seems they'd appreciate appears to me to be the best course of action. We might get it wrong sometimes, but that happens, and I don't think there's some magic solution that can fix that for every situation.

Agree.

But we can start by not blaming women for defending their boundaries.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
40% of women in London have been subject to sexual harassment in a public place. In Coventry, it's as high as 60%. And that's just in public.

To be honest, I find those numbers encouraging. I think, 30 or 40 years ago, the numbers would have been closer to 100%. In a junior high school, for example, it was not unusual for boys to "snap" a girl's bra as they walked by her in the hallway. Boys didn't get in trouble for that -- "boys will be boys," you know. I don't think that's tolerated at schools any more. So things have changed, and for the better.

But there's still a very long way to go.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QUOTE]You're right. It would be inconvenient for you to assume that every woman you meet has been a victim of sexual assault, since it's only one in five.
I don't treat the women whom I interact with any different than I treat the men I interact with: I do my best to treat all people pretty much the same regardless of race or gender.

Forgive me, but I find the above implication (that treating women the same as men makes me into a convenience-seeking asshole) to be ridiculous. Should I never get on the elevator alone with anyone?
I don't know. I didn't notice where you said that you treat women the same as men. I noticed where you said it wasn't practical to treat women as if they had been victims of rape, and where you spoke of the horror of rape. I found the juxtaposition odd, given the large proportion of women are in fact survivors of rape.

But your link doesn't support that. Here is from the article you quoted:

quote:
The surveyors elicited information on types of aggression not previously studied in national surveys, including sexual violence other than rape, psychological aggression, coercion and control of reproductive and sexual health.

The plain fact is that every person, male or female, on the planet could claim to be the "victim" of sexual assault by the definition they used. It is a marvel of restraint on the part of the people asked in the survey that the number was so low. If this "survey" was intended to be an objective assessment of sexual assault, the people running it were incompetent. More likely, it was a piece of advocacy masquerading as science.

--Tom Clune

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I think the original argument is getting obscured slightly. It seems to me that some people here are trying to say that the punishment for the original offence should be (and always be presumably as a matter of justice) public vilification without actually saying it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But your link doesn't support that. Here is from the article you quoted:

quote:
The surveyors elicited information on types of aggression not previously studied in national surveys, including sexual violence other than rape, psychological aggression, coercion and control of reproductive and sexual health.
The plain fact is that every person, male or female, on the planet could claim to be the "victim" of sexual assault by the definition they used. It is a marvel of restraint on the part of the people asked in the survey that the number was so low. If this "survey" was intended to be an objective assessment of sexual assault, the people running it were incompetent. More likely, it was a piece of advocacy masquerading as science.

--Tom Clune

Wow. Way to totally mischaracterize an entire body of work [PDF], tclune. You seem to be under the impression that all surveys ask only one question. Or that if they ask more than one question (e.g. "How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to have vaginal sex?", "How many of your romantic or sexual partners have ever tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?") that all the answers are rolled in together to generate one single number. In other words, it's not those politicized bastards over at the CDC who are conflating coercive psychological abuse with rape, it's you.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...if a woman gets off an elevator when a man gets on, if other people did not respond by saying, "Sheesh, what's wrong with her? Does she think every man is a rapist?" or "If she's getting off the lift because he's a man, she's a sexist pig, too." Because those responses -- which often come from otherwise good, decent men who would never willfully cross a woman's boundaries -- are also part of rape culture. Folks who say those kinds of things are not violating her boundaries, but they are insisting that she doesn't have the right to set her own boundaries.

Who pays that much attention to those who get on and off an elevator?

If I see one person get off as soon as another gets on, I assume that person suddenly thought of something he/she needed to do before she took the elevator. That is, if I'm paying any attention at all.

Moo

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think Croesos is right on this one. I don't think we should assume the CDC is conflicting harassment and rape. I know it's anecdotal, but I have made it a real point of listening on this issue since a dear friend of mine was attacked. Now, I have never been assaulted in that way, but every single time the issue has come up with other women--I have not heard the issue discussed with men around, so that might or might not change things--at least 1/3 of the women present have been rape victims. Not ONE of the women I have talked to reported it. Now since I have not brought up the issue every time, sometimes others brought it up, there is also some selection bias. Still, I have heard far too many women speak of their experiences to presume that there isn't a hell of a lot of unreported rape going on. One in five sounds about right to me.

P.S. What Moo said

[ 29. March 2013, 13:58: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wow. Way to totally mischaracterize an entire body of work [PDF], tclune.

I didn't mischaracterize the work, I quoted the article that Josephine linked to. If that is a mischaracterization, it is the author of the article's mischaracterization.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wow. Way to totally mischaracterize an entire body of work [PDF], tclune.
I didn't mischaracterize the work, I quoted the article that Josephine linked to. If that is a mischaracterization, it is the author of the article's mischaracterization.

--Tom Clune

You mean the article that explicitly states:

quote:
The researchers defined rape as completed forced penetration, forced penetration facilitated by drugs or alcohol, or attempted forced penetration.

You find that statement ambiguous, or unclear, or so broad it includes "every person, male or female, on the planet"?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You mean the article that explicitly states:

quote:
The researchers defined rape as completed forced penetration, forced penetration facilitated by drugs or alcohol, or attempted forced penetration.
You find that statement ambiguous, or unclear, or so broad it includes "every person, male or female, on the planet"?

Croesos, once again you distort what was written. I will respond to this point and then leave this thread to the amen chorus. What was claimed by Josephine was that sexual ASSAULT was widespread. The article noted that the survey included a wide variety of human interactions (undoubtedly all unpleasant to one of the parties, I am not taking issue with that) as examples of sexual assault. They did not claim that all these were examples of rape; the author did not claim that they claimed that; Josephine did not claim that; I did not claim that she claimed that. I'm not sure why you have jumped to that to support that I have distorted something that was written, but the irony of it is not lost on me.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What was claimed by Josephine was that sexual ASSAULT was widespread.

Yes. And then I clarified -- the article did not say that one in five women has been a victim of sexual assault. It said the study investigated many forms of sexual assault, and found that one in five women has been a victim of rape or attempted rape.

quote:
I'm not sure why you have jumped to that to support that I have distorted something that was written

Because it rather looks like you have. I don't think you've done so intentionally. But you do seem to be misunderstanding what was said.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Croesos, once again you distort what was written. I will respond to this point and then leave this thread to the amen chorus. What was claimed by Josephine was that sexual ASSAULT was widespread. The article noted that the survey included a wide variety of human interactions (undoubtedly all unpleasant to one of the parties, I am not taking issue with that) as examples of sexual assault. They did not claim that all these were examples of rape; the author did not claim that they claimed that; Josephine did not claim that; I did not claim that she claimed that. I'm not sure why you have jumped to that to support that I have distorted something that was written, but the irony of it is not lost on me.

--Tom Clune

Josephine asserted that approximately one in five women had been the victim of a sexual assault and linked to an article associating that number with rape and attempted rape.

You then claimed that since the survey also asked about other subjects, those numbers must be included in rape figures ("your link doesn't support that") and expressed pleased surprise that the figure was as low as 20%.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Our culture coddles black criminals? Blames white victims of black crime? Doesn't take people seriously who report that they were mugged by a black man? What holler are you living in?
That's got nothing to do with this. If the way society treats rape victims is wrong then that is what needs to change, not the way it treats all men. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Differences between two cases in an analogy have everything to do with disproving that the analogy is apt.

Goperryrevs, I'll try to hit some of your other points. If I miss something you especially want me to cover, let me know.

The woman with rejection issues issue has been addressed by Moo. Nor do I see what "there's no magic solution to fix every situation" has to do with the argument at all. That's a "duh" but really doesn't advance the argument in either direction. Nobody has proposed any magic, one-size-fits-all solutions. I've partly addressed the race question vis-a-vis privilege and power. I'll address this (recall this is in contrast/comparison to a white guy who is fearful of every black man he meets) :

quote:
If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.

There is a disanalogy here. Black guys in suits in a business boardroom are very very unlikely to be murderous thugs. There are clues you can use to determine this. There are no clues a woman can use to determine if a man is a rapist or potential rapist because there is no rapist M.O. As one article put it, for a woman, every man is Schrödinger's rapist. She won't know he's a rapist until he rapes her. There are no reliable clues, the way a law degree is a pretty darned reliable clue that a black man isn't a mugger. The cases are therefore dissimilar and the analogy fails.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

So when I'm talking about sexual harassment, I'm assuming we're talking about sexual approaches which are either assumed for no good (sane, sensible) reason to be welcome or where the perpetrator is completely indifferent as to whether or not the approach will be welcome. And I still say that that is always about rape.

So consider a young lady beginning a new job. Every day, when she arrives for work, she is greeted by a group of older male employees with a series of calls along the lines of "Nice tits, darlin'", "Wouldn't you like to get your hands on those" and so on.

It is clear to me that this is sexual harassment. It is clear to me that this is about objectifying the woman in question, and treating her as a sexual object rather than a person. It is clear to me that nobody should have to endure that kind of thing in order to go to work.

These aren't sexual approaches. The men aren't actually expecting or soliciting sex with the new employee, any more than when they read Loaded magazine or whatever, they actually expect Kelly Brook to turn up at their house wearing a fur coat and nothing more.

And this is why I think your bottom line "I would if I could" is wrong. Because most of these men wouldn't, even if they thought they would get away with it. This kind of sexual harassment is not "about rape" in any useful sense, but it is certainly part of the wider "rape culture".

As we all know, most rapes are by people who know their victims. The guy who lurks in bushes with a knife knows that he is a rapist. Most rapists don't - not really. He convinces himself that the woman owes him sex because he bought her dinner, or because she invited him in to her apartment, or her bed, or because she would have fought harder if she really meant it, or that all girls and women are secretly gagging for it because he is a star of such and such a sporting team, or a singer or whatever.

The men in this category would happily agree that rapists were scum (meaning the lurkers-in-bushes) whilst telling you that if a woman goes home with you, it means she has committed herself to having sex, and isn't allowed to back out.

I really don't think we're far apart in opinion, but I don't think your language is helpful.

We agree, I think, that the Loaded-reading, sexual objectification culture feeds the mentality of date rapists, and that an environment where men think that discussing the shape and size of their co-workers' breasts is normal, acceptable behaviour is more likely to lead to those men also thinking that a woman owes him because he bought her dinner. If that means that you want to call every catcall a "proto-rape", you might even be correct in a technical sense, but it's just not helpful language.

We also have, in some circles, a culture of casual violence - a man who feels slighted thinks nothing of punching the person who has offended him in order to settle the perceived slight. Calling such a man a "proto-murderer" isn't really helpful either - either to the clarity of a discussion, or to the cause of persuading him not to lash out in anger.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm not so sure that those kind of remarks, repeated every day to a co-worker who can't avoid you, shouldn't be classed as a real attempt toward coerced sex. The men are watching here closely for signs of weakness--can she "handle" their verbal sexual aggression? If not, most of them will never follow up with anything worse, jusr writing her off as a bit of a wet blanket--but there's usually one, isn't there? And even he will most likely escalate things a bit at a time, before outright rape.

The trouble with so-called pretend aggression is that it can so easily turn into the real thing.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh, and the message is more often "I could if I would," i.e. "Fear me, because I coukd change my mind and take you at any time." I' m speaking of sexual harassers here, not men in general.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... consider a young lady beginning a new job. Every day, when she arrives for work, she is greeted by a group of older male employees with a series of calls along the lines of "Nice tits, darlin'", "Wouldn't you like to get your hands on those" and so on.

It is clear to me that this is sexual harassment. It is clear to me that this is about objectifying the woman in question, and treating her as a sexual object rather than a person. It is clear to me that nobody should have to endure that kind of thing in order to go to work.

These aren't sexual approaches. The men aren't actually expecting or soliciting sex with the new employee ... And this is why I think your bottom line "I would if I could" is wrong. Because most of these men wouldn't, even if they thought they would get away with it. This kind of sexual harassment is not "about rape" in any useful sense, but it is certainly part of the wider "rape culture".

I think you're splitting hairs here. Whether they would actually do anything is a moot point - the message is "I'm appraising you sexually and if you can't be grateful you can at least be passive." They think they're entitled to do this - and any woamn who makes her objection clear is seen as a humourless bitch, ball-breaker, whatever.

quote:
We also have, in some circles, a culture of casual violence - a man who feels slighted thinks nothing of punching the person who has offended him in order to settle the perceived slight. Calling such a man a "proto-murderer" isn't really helpful either - either to the clarity of a discussion, or to the cause of persuading him not to lash out in anger.

There's a huge difference between a man lashing out at a peer who might equally strike back, and a man lashing out at someone who can't, won't or usually doesn't strike back - whether that's a woman, or a person who is for some other reason expected to be weak and passive. Actually men who regularly slap their women around quite often end up killing them and I'm not really interested in whether you think pointing this out is or isn't helpful.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Goperryrevs, I'll try to hit some of your other points. If I miss something you especially want me to cover, let me know.

The woman with rejection issues issue has been addressed by Moo. Nor do I see what "there's no magic solution to fix every situation" has to do with the argument at all. That's a "duh" but really doesn't advance the argument in either direction. Nobody has proposed any magic, one-size-fits-all solutions. I've partly addressed the race question vis-a-vis privilege and power. I'll address this (recall this is in contrast/comparison to a white guy who is fearful of every black man he meets) :

quote:
If she acts with the same suspicion and precaution regarding every man she meets, I think that she is being sexist.
There is a disanalogy here. Black guys in suits in a business boardroom are very very unlikely to be murderous thugs. There are clues you can use to determine this. There are no clues a woman can use to determine if a man is a rapist or potential rapist because there is no rapist M.O. As one article put it, for a woman, every man is Schrödinger's rapist. She won't know he's a rapist until he rapes her. There are no reliable clues, the way a law degree is a pretty darned reliable clue that a black man isn't a mugger. The cases are therefore dissimilar and the analogy fails.

Thanks mousethief, that was a really helpful post.

I guess I'm trying to figure out whether there's anything distinctive about rape or sexual assault compared to other issues.

The thing is, any person you meet or know at any time could do something vile and horrible at any time. Rape is just one of those things. There's a probability scale of likelihood for all those things, but I take the point that rapists are often unexpected and unrecognisable.

The black lawyers / muggers analogy was more to make the point that there is a continuum of probability, with extremes at both ends. I guess my main issue with the any man could be a rapist is that it implies that for every man that a woman meets, in every situation, the likelihood of them being a rapist is exactly the same. That's what I take issue with, and why I was pushing the reasonable fear / precaution point. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that a woman walking home late at night would be more fearful of a man that she sees walking towards her than she would seeing a man walking towards her in a hospital or a school. The likelihood of being attacked, or at least the fear and the perception is very different in different situations.

I do totally understand that someone who has been in a sexist environment, or heaven forbid, worse, been raped, will find it much harder to trust men in general. So what would be paranoid for one person is understandable for another.

But my general point is that suspicion of a man is much more justified, and indeed commendable and sensible at some times and in some situations than in others. So we should encourage women to think about those situations - one example I already mentioned is having your drink spiked - and what they could do to protect themselves. I'm not saying that at other times they should completely let their guard down - just that there is a scale. A scale of danger that they're in at any particular time, and a scale of danger that any particular man might be. Now, of course, it can be hard to ascertain that, but it's not impossible. Trust builds between people who know each other, and that danger is reduced. Certain locations and times of the day are more dangerous than others.

I'm not sure that's too controversial, and if you or Josephine thought I was saying much more than that, apologies - I'm still formulating what I think about this (I was and am much more confident of what I thought when we were discussing the OP and the specific event that this thread was about).

On the woman with rejection issues, I'm not sure Moo's answer totally deals with that. Her point is that no-one notices who gets on or off a lift. Which if that was true for 100% of all people, then there'd be no need for men to not ride alone in a lift with a woman because the woman wouldn't have noticed and therefore felt in danger anyhow... I think the point is more that most people don't give a crap. But, as you say, a few women might feel threatened being alone in a lift with a man. But if that's the case, then surely there is still likelihood that a woman with rejection issues might notice a man leaving for no apparent reason and feel rejected?

If your point is that there is a net benefit, then fine. If for every 10 women that feel less threatened, only 1 feels rejected, then I can see the argument. But I don't think that it's as simple as all women would be happier with that arrangement. People are different, and people appreciate different things.

On that point, there was one other question I asked:

quote:
Should I avoid getting in a lift alone with a man too? It's very possible that that man is also the victim of rape or sexual abuse. The statistics are lower, but there are still plenty of men who have been through that, and for all I know, the man next to me in the lift is one of them.

If not, why not?

In asking that I was again trying to push the point that this isn't about hard and fast rules that work for everyone, but about the likelihood of a situation being unhelpful for someone. Sorry if my "magic solution" comment was crass - I'm just concerned that for every "this is what will make women feel happier / safer / more empowered" suggestion, there is very possibly going to be a number of women who say "well, not me!", with good reasons why not.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think in part we're talking at cross purposes, partly. But you're mistaking probability based on knowledge of certain facts with probability that has no facts to work on. In any given situation, a woman cannot distinguish between men, which are the rapists and which are not. Of course the vast majority of men are not rapists. But for any given man, it is not possible for a woman to know which category he falls into. So from that perspective, from the perspective of the person with no further information about the man except that he's in the same elevator in the building after everybody else has gone home, the probability of this one or that one being a rapist is exactly the same.

In statistics and probability there is the concept of probability "given that." Consider a population of diggleblodgits (which are very difficult to distinguish by sex) which is 50% male and 50% female, and the males have a 55% chance of having gene X43, and the females have a 45% chance of having gene X43.

If you grab a diggleblodgit at random, and don't know the sex, then it has a 50% chance if having gene X43. If however you know it's male, then it has a 55% chance.

Knowing the history of a man can help you determine the likelihood of his being a rapist. (Particularly if he has raped before, or is violent towards women and so on.) But without that knowledge, the probability you would assign to any given man is the same.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Trust builds between people who know each other, and that danger is reduced.

You still seem to be stuck on the fallacy that all rapists are strangers to their victims. From a statistically objective perspective, personal acquaintance increases the likelihood of rape occurring.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think in part we're talking at cross purposes, partly.

Could well be:)

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But for any given man, it is not possible for a woman to know which category he falls into. So from that perspective, from the perspective of the person with no further information about the man except that he's in the same elevator in the building after everybody else has gone home, the probability of this one or that one being a rapist is exactly the same.

That makes sense.

But I was also talking about situations and times as well as people. In one sense, from the point of view of a woman, for many situations, it matters not one jot if a man is a rapist or not, if there is no opportunity at that time, in that situation, for that man to rape her. The "in the same building, after everyone else has gone home" seems key in your example.

Specifically, when it comes to elevators, I have no idea how many rapes occur in them. I thought nowadays most elevators have cameras in them, which I'd expect would reduce the likelihood of a woman getting raped in a lift. But I might be wrong about that.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You still seem to be stuck on the fallacy that all rapists are strangers to their victims. From a statistically objective perspective, personal acquaintance increases the likelihood of rape occurring.

I'm honestly not. I'm very aware of that. But in part, we've been talking about elevators, where it is a stranger that would be with you. And in the other part, I'd suggest that the measures a woman can take are very different when it comes to rape from a stranger and rape from someone they know. The likelihood of date rape in particular can be reduced. Unexpected family members or friends who are predators is much more difficult to anticipate. I don't know what the solution is for that. I don't think the solution is to avoid all contact with male family members. Maybe the best short term solution is about creating a culture where victims feel that they can talk about these things without being disbelieved or ignored. Prevention is much more difficult, as MT has pointed out.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Maybe the best short term solution is about creating a culture where victims feel that they can talk about these things without being disbelieved or ignored.

Or blamed.

Because even women who are victims of horrific abuse are told that it's their fault.

And working towards a culture where women are allowed to set their own boundaries without being told that she's wrong for doing so, and that, you know, the behavior she's objecting to is really a compliment, and she should just get over herself and enjoy it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And in the other part, I'd suggest that the measures a woman can take are very different when it comes to rape from a stranger and rape from someone they know. The likelihood of date rape in particular can be reduced.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Maybe the best short term solution is about creating a culture where victims feel that they can talk about these things without being disbelieved or ignored.
Or blamed.

Because even women who are victims of horrific abuse are told that it's their fault.

Perhaps a good starting place would be to stop compiling lists of ways women should be responsible for rape prevention. I've often thought that the primary accomplishment of such lists was to codify a list of victims a sexual predator can feel comfortable targeting. Been out late alone? Had a drink? Wearing a short skirt? The obviously you had it coming, because these are well known rules you've blatantly violated.

I remember reading a woman's description of her own assault a few years ago. (Can't find the link.) She observed that she had frequently broken these "rape rules" by having drinks at bars, talking to strangers, being out late at night alone, wearing sexy clothes, etc. and had never once been assaulted or raped while doing so. Instead she was attacked at home by someone she knew, wearing baggy sweatclothes, and stone cold sober. The biggest factor wasn't her own behavior. It was the presence of a rapist.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I think you're splitting hairs here. Whether they would actually do anything is a moot point - the message is "I'm appraising you sexually and if you can't be grateful you can at least be passive." They think they're entitled to do this - and any woman who makes her objection clear is seen as a humourless bitch, ball-breaker, whatever.

Yes, as I have said, I agree that that is the message. I don't think I'm splitting hairs when I say that that is different from rape.

quote:
There's a huge difference between a man lashing out at a peer who might equally strike back, and a man lashing out at someone who can't, won't or usually doesn't strike back - whether that's a woman, or a person who is for some other reason expected to be weak and passive.

I agree that there is a significant difference here. You seem to want to put a vast chasm between a man lashing out at another man and a man lashing out at a woman, but very little difference between a man lashing out at a woman, a man who systematically brutalizes a woman, and a murderer.

I think that's an error.

quote:

Actually men who regularly slap their women around quite often end up killing them and I'm not really interested in whether you think pointing this out is or isn't helpful.

Where did that come from? There is a significant difference between an assault and regular domestic violence. I don't disagree that it's not uncommon for domestic violence to end in murder, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

Let's try a slightly different parallel. The catcallers and their ilk are like a schoolyard bully. The dynamic is not dissimilar - they're worse in groups, egg each other on, and enjoy cornering the geeky kid by the lockers and giving him a wedgie. They continuously and mercilessly abuse their chosen victim, and make his life extremely unpleasant. Sometimes, the victim kills him or herself.

But school bullies almost never murder their victims. They often use the language of murder - talking about how they're going to kill him or whatever, but what they actually do is humiliate him a bit more. They have him in their power, punch and kick him and could, quite easily, kill him, but they don't.

These are horrible actions, and sometimes lead to the suicide of the victim, but describing them as "murder" isn't a helpful use of language.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps a good starting place would be to stop compiling lists of ways women should be responsible for rape prevention. I've often thought that the primary accomplishment of such lists was to codify a list of victims a sexual predator can feel comfortable targeting. Been out late alone? Had a drink? Wearing a short skirt? The obviously you had it coming, because these are well known rules you've blatantly violated.

I think that's not helpful at all. Sensible suggestions of precautions that can help people are not the same as lists that make people responsible. We suggest things that people can say and do to handle bullies. We suggest that it's not a good idea to walk through certain neighbourhoods alone. As Mousethief said, "it's about not getting raped". The reality is that some things put you in more danger. It's helpful to be aware of that.

Now, not following those guidelines should never result in blame for the victim, any more than we blame a victim for getting bullied because they were too scared to tell the teacher.

But your attitude seems to like saying "well, I'm not going to tell the teacher, because I should have the freedom not to tell the teacher and I want to exercise that."

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Maybe the best short term solution is about creating a culture where victims feel that they can talk about these things without being disbelieved or ignored.
Or blamed.

Because even women who are victims of horrific abuse are told that it's their fault.

And working towards a culture where women are allowed to set their own boundaries without being told that she's wrong for doing so, and that, you know, the behavior she's objecting to is really a compliment, and she should just get over herself and enjoy it.

Quite.

And if I may bring this back to the original topic of this thread, I think I see where you're coming from with not wanting to blame Adria, because it's important not to blame victims.

As I've tried to say earlier in the thread, I think that specific case is different to that, and I could see how a similar dynamic could occur in a rape case.

If a woman physically assaulted someone, and a rapist observed that, and as a result targeted the woman and raped her, it would not be blaming the woman for getting raped to say that she shouldn't have assaulted other person in the first place. It even wouldn't be blaming her to say that the fact that she assaulted someone was in part what led to her getting raped. There are two separate crimes, with different perpetrators and victims. So say that she was a perpetrator in one crime would not be to diminish her victimhood in the other, or to somehow turn her into a perpetrator in the other.

I think it's wrong to say Adria got what was coming to her, because with regards to the abuse and threats she got, they were totally unacceptable. With regards to the threats on the Internet, she was 100% totally blameless. But with regards to her behaviour towards the men at the convention, she wasn't.

I think, looking back, my problem with what you were saying at the start of the thread, was that you were talking as if there were two parties - Adria, and men / the tech culture. So, from your point of view, the two men were both perpetrators before they were victims. I think it's that analysis that was wrong. To me, it's a case of escalating wrong behaviours where the retaliation is worse than the previous act. Someone spits some chewing gum on the floor. Someone else takes exception and pushes them. Someone else takes exception to that and punches them. Someone else takes exception to that and stabs them, and so on. Each act is worse than the previous one, and each person (expect the last) is a victim in one act and a perpetrator in another.

Hope that helps.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
These are horrible actions, and sometimes lead to the suicide of the victim, but describing them as "murder" isn't a helpful use of language.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?

Apparently you don't understand the distinction between saying something is about rape and saying it is rape. Or you do understand it and are deliberately blurring that boundary to make your point.

I am saying your 'slap is/not murder analogy does not work, because a slap may or may not be part of a continuum that leasds to murder - it depends on the context. Ditto bullying.

On the other hand, threats that put another "in fear", whether or not accompanied by anything physical, are about murder, irrespective of whether the person doing the threatening actually intends to follow through. Similarly, sexual harassment is about rape, whether or not that is what the individual perpetrator has in mind. It's true that some people who make threats are so sad and pathetic that no one usually feels seriously threatened, so many women who are subject to sexual harassment may feel nothing other than mild irritation or contempt.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps a good starting place would be to stop compiling lists of ways women should be responsible for rape prevention.
I think that's not helpful at all. Sensible suggestions of precautions that can help people are not the same as lists that make people responsible.

I disagree. The list of precautions is always the same as the list of blame. I'm sure you're going to argue that's simply a bizarre coincidence.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
These are horrible actions, and sometimes lead to the suicide of the victim, but describing them as "murder" isn't a helpful use of language.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?
Apparently you don't understand the distinction between saying something is about rape and saying it is rape. Or you do understand it and are deliberately blurring that boundary to make your point.

I am saying your 'slap is/not murder analogy does not work, because a slap may or may not be part of a continuum that leasds to murder - it depends on the context. Ditto bullying.

On the other hand, threats that put another "in fear", whether or not accompanied by anything physical, are about murder, irrespective of whether the person doing the threatening actually intends to follow through. Similarly, sexual harassment is about rape, whether or not that is what the individual perpetrator has in mind. It's true that some people who make threats are so sad and pathetic that no one usually feels seriously threatened, so many women who are subject to sexual harassment may feel nothing other than mild irritation or contempt.

The distinction you're trying to make between the violence continuum and the sexual continuum, where one doesn't necessarily lead to its highest end but the other one does, seems like gobbledegook to me.

Not least because you basically negate your own claim in the last section. After emphasising how the violence one is contextual, you then start admitting context for the sexual one.

Rape is non-consensual. I've already touched upon this before, but let me touch on it again: if a person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, but then backs off once it's clear that it's unwelcome, that's not about rape. Whereas it's arguably 'about rape' if someone indicates that they don't give a damn whether there's consent or not.

That's almost exactly the same kind of distinction as you're allowing for in the violence continuum. But you want to suggest that all undesirable sexual advances are 'about rape' and are leading in that direction.

[ 30. March 2013, 14:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've already touched upon this before, but let me touch on it again: if a person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, but then backs off once it's clear that it's unwelcome, that's not about rape. Whereas it's arguably 'about rape' if someone indicates that they don't give a damn whether there's consent or not.

That's almost exactly the same kind of distinction as you're allowing for in the violence continuum. But you want to suggest that all undesirable sexual advances are 'about rape' and are leading in that direction.

If you'd bothered to read my reply to you up-thread,* you would see that I make a clear distinction between an unwanted sexual advance (misunderstandings happen) and sexual harassment. A bunch of men shouting "Nice tits" (etc.) at a woman etc is not a sexual advance in anybody's book; it is sexual harassment. How upsetting it is would depend on the context, including the past history of the individuals concerned. It is making, or attempting to make, the victim an object of real or feigned sexual desire for some obscure purpose of perpetrator (amusement, ego massage, expression of group solidarity). On a scale of 1-10, where actual rape scores a 10, such verbal harassment might barely even score 1, but it is still on that spectrum and it is still about rape.

*I assume you haven't because otherwise you would be deliberately misrepresenting my position, something I would like to think is beneath you.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, but you do seem take a different angle for sexual issues than you do for violence issues.

And I still don't think "nice tits!" is about rape. Because on its own, it doesn't tell you, with the degree of certainty you seem to hold, whether the person calling out such charming remarks has even the slightest dreamy notion of transferring from looking/observing to acting.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps a good starting place would be to stop compiling lists of ways women should be responsible for rape prevention. I've often thought that the primary accomplishment of such lists was to codify a list of victims a sexual predator can feel comfortable targeting. Been out late alone? Had a drink? Wearing a short skirt? The obviously you had it coming, because these are well known rules you've blatantly violated.
I think that's not helpful at all. Sensible suggestions of precautions that can help people are not the same as lists that make people responsible.

Might I suggest that you spend some time with your search engine of choice, and read what you find using the search terms "victim blaming" and "slut shaming" (and whatever similar terms you choose to follow based on what you find with those search terms). And then tell me what you think. Because those "sensible precautions" don't really do a damned thing to prevent women from being raped. They might make it less likely for her to be blamed, though. (Did you read the Rape of Mr. Smith?)

quote:
The reality is that some things put you in more danger. It's helpful to be aware of that.

The most dangerous things a woman can do, as I understand the research, is to go on a date, to have a boyfriend, or to get married. I'm not quite sure how knowing that that helps prevent rape.

quote:
I think I see where you're coming from with not wanting to blame Adria, because it's important not to blame victims.

Yes, that's a large part of it.

The other part of it has to do with how women's behavior is interpreted. Men who set boundaries, who call other people out on misbehavior, who take matters into their own hands are strong, assertive, virile, admirable, and manly. Women who do exactly the same things in exactly the same settings are, at best, hateful, shrewish, nasty, bitchy, cold, pushy, slutty, lesbian ice queens. At worst -- well, read the things folks said about Adria.

So when folks say that Adria is nasty, and has a history of being bitchy and pushy and making a scene just to get attention, I'm afraid that I take all of that with a very large grain of salt.

quote:
If a woman physically assaulted someone, and a rapist observed that, and as a result targeted the woman and raped her, it would not be blaming the woman for getting raped to say that she shouldn't have assaulted other person in the first place.[quote][qb]
True.

[quote][qb] It even wouldn't be blaming her to say that the fact that she assaulted someone was in part what led to her getting raped.

This is where I disagree, strongly. The only thing that led to her getting raped is the fact that a rapist decided to rape her. Nothing she did led to her getting raped. Nothing.

Unless you want to make a catalog of the reasons that rapists say that they chose their victims, and tell women if they do those things, then that might lead to their getting raped. You might end up with something like this. But make sure you check Snopes before you advise your friends with long hair to get a haircut.

And the whole premise of the question, "how does the rapist choose his victim" is wrong, anyway. It assumes the guy in the dimly lit alley. As we know, most rapists are friends and family of their victims. Rape in those cases is either (as in the Steubenville case) the end result of seeing women as objects available for male enjoyment, or it is a form of domestic violence. And as I'm sure you know, when a man says he hit his wife because she burned the toast, it has nothing at all to do with the toast. Burning the toast is not in whole or in part what led to her getting hit. Likewise with rape. To say that a woman's behavior is part of what led to the rape is in fact victim-blaming. It's exactly what is meant by rape culture. It is wrong.

quote:
I think it's wrong to say Adria got what was coming to her, because with regards to the abuse and threats she got, they were totally unacceptable. With regards to the threats on the Internet, she was 100% totally blameless.

we agree there.

quote:
But with regards to her behaviour towards the men at the convention, she wasn't.

This, I think, is a point that can be discussed.

quote:
To me, it's a case of escalating wrong behaviours where the retaliation is worse than the previous act.

You're conflating people and roles here, too. The Internet goons who were threatening Adria, who mounted the DDOS attack against her employer, were not injured by her in any way. They weren't victims of her action. They weren't retaliating against her. They were punishing her for daring to draw attention to what she perceived as sexist misbehavior by a couple of men at a professional conference.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

One more thing (missed the edit window): Read up on the Steubenville blogger, and compare what happened to her to what happened to Adria. Let me know what you think.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... you do seem take a different angle for sexual issues than you do for violence issues.

And I still don't think "nice tits!" is about rape. Because on its own, it doesn't tell you, with the degree of certainty you seem to hold, whether the person calling out such charming remarks has even the slightest dreamy notion of transferring from looking/observing to acting.

That's because I think that, to some extent, what they actually intend is irrelevant. They may well think that the woman would be flattered, or at least amused. In fact, in some circumstances, "nice tits" would be funny in an ironic way, but I don't actually think that any group of men yelling those kind of comments at a woman really expect her to feel anything other than uncomfortable.

I agree my analogy with threats of violence isn't exact, but that's because everyone knows that no one wants to be the victim of violence, whereas men who do this sort of thing apparently expect women to either be grateful for their attentions or, at the very least, accept them passively. I recognise that there are more boundaries a man has to cross before becoming an actual rapist, but I'm saying an important boundary has already been crossed and the fact that a man may not realised he's crossed it is about rape culture.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

If you follow Twitter (or even if you don't), you might want to check out this link. http://hilaroar.tumblr.com/post/45957899437/safetytipsforladies-or-why-victim-blaming-is

(removed the superfluous URL code)

[ 30. March 2013, 18:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps a good starting place would be to stop compiling lists of ways women should be responsible for rape prevention.
I think that's not helpful at all. Sensible suggestions of precautions that can help people are not the same as lists that make people responsible.
I disagree. The list of precautions is always the same as the list of blame. I'm sure you're going to argue that's simply a bizarre coincidence.

If someone's a douchebag with a conscious or unconscious agenda of blaming victims of rape, then of course the lists are going to match. But the existence of douchebags doesn't entitle you to throw around logical fallacies. Being aware of correlation or cause and effect is not the same things as placing blame. There are plenty of people who simply care about women's welfare and how they can keep themselves that little bit safer who would never place blame on a rape victim. Douchebags talk about not wearing sexy clothing. That's bullshit, because a) there's very little proven correlation between rape and any type of clothing, and b) expecting women to dress conservatively all the time is an unfair expectation. But an example I've given twice now is making sure your drink doesn't get spiked. Buying a bottle and keeping your thumb over it, and not leaving your drink unattended. That costs very little effort, but can make the difference between getting drugged and raped or not getting drugged and raped. Sticking in groups, telling friends where you are going. That shit makes a difference. Ignoring it because you think it's just some agenda of people who want to play the blame game actually increases the possibility of harm to women!

Jospehine, thanks for all the links. I'll have a proper read and get back to you when I can. Yes, I did read about the rape of Mr Smith. I thought it made a very good point. I hope the above illustrates that I'm all up for precautions that help protect women (if they actually DO make a difference), but definitely not up for any victim blaming. I think that the area where you can protect yourself most is date-rape. As for boyfriends / husbands, I agree that's much more difficult, perhaps impossible.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
So when folks say that Adria is nasty, and has a history of being bitchy and pushy and making a scene just to get attention, I'm afraid that I take all of that with a very large grain of salt.

Did you read the article by Amanda Blum? This isn't folks. This is someone who knows Adria, and gives specific examples of her prior crappy behaviour. And Amanda is someone who is coming from a similar background to yourself:

quote:
To be clear, I believe the tech industry, of which I am a part, is rampantly sexist. It runs so deep and so organic to the industry that even men who would see it in other places don’t recognize it in our insulated world. So rampant, often females don’t even see it-it usually happens quietly- a lack of female speakers, a male praised for something a female said earlier, unnoticed.

I think her opinion on this specific case is more informed and balanced than most.

I'm just a little concerned that you seem to have approached this with some prejudice. Because of your background, your assumption seemed to be: "Adria: woman in tech, must be blameless victim. Two guys: men in tech, must be sexist assholes". And you seem to be very reticent to let go of that assumption, despite reasonable testimony to the contrary, from one of the guys, and from someone who knows and has worked with Adria. Now, it could well be that 99 out of 100 times, you'd have been right. However, it really doesn't seem like that in this case. I understand why you had that prejudice. As I said earlier, I have and continue to have great respect for you as one of the wisest people on the ship. But I dunno, to me it seems to be a bit of a blind spot.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're conflating people and roles here, too. The Internet goons who were threatening Adria, who mounted the DDOS attack against her employer, were not injured by her in any way. They weren't victims of her action. They weren't retaliating against her. They were punishing her for daring to draw attention to what she perceived as sexist misbehavior by a couple of men at a professional conference.

Yes, I know - my use of the word "retaliate" was wrong - I meant it in as in "retaliate on behalf of". But what you've just said is the very point I was trying to make to you in my previous post - I was concerned that you were the one conflating the two guys at the conference with the scumbags who abused Adria on the internet.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Goperryrevs, I had a longish post almost completely written, and my browser hiccuped, and I lost it. I'll try again later. I just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring what you said. Thanks.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Let's try a slightly different parallel. The catcallers and their ilk are like a schoolyard bully. The dynamic is not dissimilar - they're worse in groups, egg each other on, and enjoy cornering the geeky kid by the lockers and giving him a wedgie. They continuously and mercilessly abuse their chosen victim, and make his life extremely unpleasant. Sometimes, the victim kills him or herself.

But school bullies almost never murder their victims. They often use the language of murder - talking about how they're going to kill him or whatever, but what they actually do is humiliate him a bit more. They have him in their power, punch and kick him and could, quite easily, kill him, but they don't.

These are horrible actions, and sometimes lead to the suicide of the victim, but describing them as "murder" isn't a helpful use of language.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?

Yeah.
I think the problem here is that "rape" falls under the umbrella of "Power-seeking behavior"-- so, the root of rape is the need for power.

However, the root of bullying is the need for power. The root of shaming, dismissing, and intimidating is the need for power.

Lots of people looking for power are satisfied with getting a reaction or making someone get out of their way, or getting the last word. The thing is, for women, a person who demonstrates a strong need to dominate is raising a big red flag, and it is in a woman's best interest to mind that red flag So, if a guy says "Nice tits" and you express discomfort and their reaction is "WHAT? IT WAS A COMPLIMENT! WHAT, ARE YOU ASHAMED OF YOUR TITS?", that person is identifying themselves as someone to stay the hell away from. Sorry, guys, you might not like it, but women have the right to decide their comfort level.(Just as I'm sure men do regularly.) And someone who can't hear a simple "That bothers me, please stop" needs to be off the list of people to trust. Not everyone a woman eliminates that way will necessarily be a rapist, but at the very least she will be eliminating people it is not worth getting into tiring, insoluble confrontations with.

[Deleted the million duplicates, DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 31. March 2013, 09:36: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Goperryrevs, I had a longish post almost completely written, and my browser hiccuped, and I lost it. I'll try again later. I just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring what you said. Thanks.

No worries, I hate it when that happens!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[Eek!]

12 consecutive repeated posts. Is this a record?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Jospehine, thanks for all the links. I'll have a proper read and get back to you when I can.

Thanks for your patience.

quote:
I hope the above illustrates that I'm all up for precautions that help protect women (if they actually DO make a difference), but definitely not up for any victim blaming.

It does. And, again, thank you.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
So when folks say that Adria is nasty, and has a history of being bitchy and pushy and making a scene just to get attention, I'm afraid that I take all of that with a very large grain of salt.
Did you read the article by Amanda Blum? This isn't folks. This is someone who knows Adria, and gives specific examples of her prior crappy behaviour. And Amanda is someone who is coming from a similar background to yourself:

quote:
To be clear, I believe the tech industry, of which I am a part, is rampantly sexist. It runs so deep and so organic to the industry that even men who would see it in other places don’t recognize it in our insulated world. So rampant, often females don’t even see it-it usually happens quietly- a lack of female speakers, a male praised for something a female said earlier, unnoticed.
I think her opinion on this specific case is more informed and balanced than most.

Yes, I read Amanda Blum's article. It is well written. But read the part that you quoted again: sexism in the tech industry is so deep and so organic that both men and women are often blind to it. And that doesn't just happen in the tech industry. It happens in all businesses and all industries, and in politics as well. And one of the most important manifestations of sexism in the business world (any business) is the response to any form of power exercised by a woman.

If you'll forgive me, I'll give you a few more articles to read. This one is about the reaction to Australia's Julia Gillard. Don't stick to the "plain vanilla" version; read the "R-rated" link where the author shows you what was said about Gillard. Compare what's there to what was said about Adria. Keep in mind that this is a common response to women exercising any form of power or authority. She isn't required to do anything bad to trigger this kind of response. Any form of active, assertive behavior, any kind of success, is enough to trigger it.

This brief article explains that kind of response briefly, in terms of male privilege. This one keeps a business focus. Note this, from the last article:

quote:
to be successful, women have had to adopt work styles that men were comfortable with — and that can put women in a double-bind. To succeed in what, for many, remains a male-dominated work environment, women are encouraged to model male-leadership styles, from the business suits they wear to the firm tone they take in the meeting. To do otherwise is to risk being perceived as weak or indecisive. Yet when women display the same assertive traits that make men the “top dog,” they’re viewed as being too aggressive — or, to continue the dog metaphor, a bitch.

This little cartoon probably makes the point as well as any of the above, so if you're tired of reading, skip the articles, and take a look.

The point is, I understand that many folks have said that Adria was out of line in what she did at PyCon (and that she has been similarly out of line on many other occasions). It's absolutely possible that they were right. When the only black child in a class is being told they're stupid and lazy, it's possible that the child is stupid and lazy. But given the pervasive stereotypes of blacks, the bar for accepting that assertion is very, very high. Having one or two people saying so -- even people who seem reasonable and reliable, people like Amanda Blum -- wouldn't be enough to persuade me that the assertions about the child aren't largely or even solely a reaction to the child's race.

Likewise for the assertions about Adria. It's possible that they're true. But the bar for accepting that assertion is, and should be, very high.

quote:
I'm just a little concerned that you seem to have approached this with some prejudice. Because of your background, your assumption seemed to be: "Adria: woman in tech, must be blameless victim. Two guys: men in tech, must be sexist assholes". And you seem to be very reticent to let go of that assumption, despite reasonable testimony to the contrary, from one of the guys, and from someone who knows and has worked with Adria. Now, it could well be that 99 out of 100 times, you'd have been right. However, it really doesn't seem like that in this case. I understand why you had that prejudice. As I said earlier, I have and continue to have great respect for you as one of the wisest people on the ship. But I dunno, to me it seems to be a bit of a blind spot.

I wasn't thinking "must be," but "is far more likely than not to be." Subtle distinction perhaps. And it might well be something of a blind spot for me. But I think that, when you're dealing with deep, pervasive, harmful stereotypes, it's important not to dismiss them too easily.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
12 consecutive repeated posts. Is this a record?

I have no idea what the hell happened there. I was working on my school computer. God Knows.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

The other part of it has to do with how women's behavior is interpreted. Men who set boundaries, who call other people out on misbehavior, who take matters into their own hands are strong, assertive, virile, admirable, and manly. Women who do exactly the same things in exactly the same settings are, at best, hateful, shrewish, nasty, bitchy, cold, pushy, slutty, lesbian ice queens. At worst -- well, read the things folks said about Adria.

So when folks say that Adria is nasty, and has a history of being bitchy and pushy and making a scene just to get attention, I'm afraid that I take all of that with a very large grain of salt.<snip>

This is where I disagree, strongly. The only thing that led to her getting raped is the fact that a rapist decided to rape her. Nothing she did led to her getting raped. Nothing.

...And the whole premise of the question, "how does the rapist choose his victim" is wrong, anyway. It assumes the guy in the dimly lit alley. As we know, most rapists are friends and family of their victims. Rape in those cases is either (as in the Steubenville case) the end result of seeing women as objects available for male enjoyment, or it is a form of domestic violence. And as I'm sure you know, when a man says he hit his wife because she burned the toast, it has nothing at all to do with the toast. Burning the toast is not in whole or in part what led to her getting hit. Likewise with rape. To say that a woman's behavior is part of what led to the rape is in fact victim-blaming. It's exactly what is meant by rape culture. It is wrong.

To connect the dots between the two sections I quoted: while society at large might simply use dismissive name calling like "hateful, shrewish, nasty, bitchy, cold, pushy, slutty, lesbian ice queens" solely to attempt to shut a woman up, or to push something she said out of their thoughts, a person with raping tenancies will use this exact script to convince himself that his victim was asking for it. Rape is the distillation of societal permission to hate women in a variety of day-to-day ways.

So, we need to start taking steps to take those particular tools away. we need to give women tools to arm themselves against them, and we need decent men (and women!)to speak the hell up when they see their friends sliding into talk like this.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I hope the above illustrates that I'm all up for precautions that help protect women (if they actually DO make a difference), but definitely not up for any victim blaming. I think that the area where you can protect yourself most is date-rape. As for boyfriends / husbands, I agree that's much more difficult, perhaps impossible.

<snip>

Did you read the article by Amanda Blum? This isn't folks. This is someone who knows Adria, and gives specific examples of her prior crappy behaviour.

Yeah, good thing you're against victim blaming. Otherwise you might be scrutinizing the accuser's past to see how slutty, excuse me, how "strident" she's been in the past to decide whether to believe her now. It's not an exact parallel, but I note that the past behavior of the two men involved has not been subjected to a similar level of scrutiny.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I note that the past behavior of the two men involved has not been subjected to a similar level of scrutiny.

The man who was fired issued a public apology soon after the event, admitting that he was wrong to make big dongle jokes in the conference hall, and that Ms. Richards was justified in complaining.

That rather removes him from the discussion, no? He might think that his medicine was harsh, but he doesn't say so - just admits he was in error. Whether or not he's a serial dongle-joker doesn't make a difference. He was wrong, and he admits it.

Ms. Richards thinks her response was correct and justified. She blogs that she thought about addressing this in private, either with the men themselves or with the PyCon management, but decided that public shaming via twitter was the correct action.

Many people think that this response wasn't proportionate. Ms. Richards disagrees. So given that she stands behind her response, for someone who thinks she went too far, it is completely relevant to look at whether this was an unusual response, and so maybe to offer her the benefit of the doubt, or whether this reaction is typical.

This doesn't address how bad Dongle Man's behaviour was, or what should happen to him, but does affect the observer's opinion of Ms. Richards, and on whether he or she should chose to engage professionally with Ms. Richards in the future.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This doesn't address how bad Dongle Man's behaviour was, or what should happen to him, but does affect the observer's opinion of Ms. Richards, and on whether he or she should chose to engage professionally with Ms. Richards in the future.

Of course it doesn't address "Dongle Man's" behavior. That's the whole point of concentrating attention on Ms. Richards. Examining every minute detail of Ms. Richards' past and endless speculation about what she shoulda/woulda/coulda done is why "Dongle Man" doesn't even have a name. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course it doesn't address "Dongle Man's" behavior. That's the whole point of concentrating attention on Ms. Richards. Examining every minute detail of Ms. Richards' past and endless speculation about what she shoulda/woulda/coulda done is why "Dongle Man" doesn't even have a name. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Wow, he Gets It!
[Overused]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I just spent a few minutes googling for information or speculation abut Mr. Dongle-Man's past behavior. . This is about it. The author (a business writer at Forbes) says the guy getting fired just doesn't make sense, and suggests that there might be more to the story.

But, as has been noted here, nobody is interested in that part of the story.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Thanks for that link, Josephine. Going a link or two further in, this article gives a different impression of Adria Richards than does Amanda Blum's. So, perhaps her "behaviour" is not so cut and dry.
But, regardless, the general reaction has been one-sided and egregious. Bullshit with no excuse.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thanks for that link, Josephine. Going a link or two further in, this article gives a different impression of Adria Richards than does Amanda Blum's. So, perhaps her "behaviour" is not so cut and dry.

Thank you, lilBuddha. Goperryrev, please read lilBuddha's link when you read my last response to you. It fits with what I was thinking.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, that link is like a primer in how to discredit a woman.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

But, as has been noted here, nobody is interested in that part of the story.

Well, he admitted he was wrong, and apologized.

Most people have agreed that the firing looks harsh, and have speculated either that this is reflexive business paranoia or that there were other issues between him and his employer. It's not likely that we'll get any more information - Dongle-Man is probably trying to figure out whether he can apply for a new job without admitting that he's Mr. Dongle, which seems unliklely. Anyone applying for a job with PlayHaven on their CV is going to get the obvious question.

(BTW, I think I was able to find Dongle-man's name in about 5 minutes. He'd been employed by PlayHaven for about 2 years before he was fired, but I don't think that tells us much.)

I imagine he'll keep the dongle jokes under control in public next time.

But we're not discussing Dongle Man much because, basically, everyone agrees with the man himself that his comments were out of place. We could agree with each other that he shouldn't be sitting in the audience making dongle jokes again if it'll make you happy.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But we're not discussing Dongle Man much because, basically, everyone agrees with the man himself that his comments were out of place. We could agree with each other that he shouldn't be sitting in the audience making dongle jokes again if it'll make you happy.

...but some people are now wondering if the harshness of his punishment has something to do with a previous pattern of behavior.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...but some people are now wondering if the harshness of his punishment has something to do with a previous pattern of behavior.

Sure, it's possible. On the face of it, it seems like there has to be more to the story than one puerile dongle joke.

PlayHaven put out the kind of bland non-statement that an employer is going to make in these kind of circumstances. The guy's photo is all over the web, and his name isn't too hard to discover, so the opportunity for people to tell stories about him is there. If he's a well-known sexist pig, I'd expect a story or two to surface.

Nothing has, which probably means that the other factors that got him fired are internal to the company (and whether it's sexist behaviour, job performance or just that his skillset is no longer required, I don't think we can tell.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
PlayHaven put out the kind of bland non-statement that an employer is going to make in these kind of circumstances. The guy's photo is all over the web, and his name isn't too hard to discover, so the opportunity for people to tell stories about him is there. If he's a well-known sexist pig, I'd expect a story or two to surface.

Unless, of course, they don't want to put up with the kind of vicious attacks that Ms. Richards has suffered. Keeping the bitches in line can be handy that way. Which is why it is part of rape culture -- protect wrongdoing men by making it clear that any woman who complains will be viciously ripped. A perfect set up for men to get away with sexist behavior.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless, of course, they don't want to put up with the kind of vicious attacks that Ms. Richards has suffered.

Possibly.

I think, amongst a lot of circular discussion, we have concluded the following:

1. Dongle Man shouldn't have been making big dongle comments

2. PyCon dealt appropriately with him - gave him a dressing down, did not expel him from the conference, and did not ban him from coming back next year.

3. PlayHaven firing him was harsh, unless they were pretty much looking for an excuse anyway.

That deals with him. Now, as far as Ms. Richards is concerned:

4. Everyone agrees that she has a right not to have unwelcome sexual jokes inflicted on her in a work environment.

5. We don't have complete consensus on whether she dealt with Dongle Man in an appropriate way. The majority think that posting the photo to her twitter feed was unacceptable. Josephine is standing up for Ms. Richards's argument that changing the dynamic in the tech industry to make it a safe, welcoming career for young women is more important than some man getting publicly shamed. We should note at this point that Ms. Richards did not want and did not intend that Dongle Man should be fired.

6. Everybody agrees that the foul invective hurled at Ms. Richards is the worst part of this whole affair.

7. Everybody agrees that Ms. Richards being fired in response to DDoS attacks on her employer is rank cowardice, although perhaps understandable in business terms.

Do I have that about right?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I hope the above illustrates that I'm all up for precautions that help protect women (if they actually DO make a difference), but definitely not up for any victim blaming. I think that the area where you can protect yourself most is date-rape. As for boyfriends / husbands, I agree that's much more difficult, perhaps impossible.

<snip>

Did you read the article by Amanda Blum? This isn't folks. This is someone who knows Adria, and gives specific examples of her prior crappy behaviour.
Yeah, good thing you're against victim blaming. Otherwise you might be scrutinizing the accuser's past to see how slutty, excuse me, how "strident" she's been in the past to decide whether to believe her now. It's not an exact parallel, but I note that the past behavior of the two men involved has not been subjected to a similar level of scrutiny.

FFS. You seem to be intent on continuously misrepresenting what I say. I'm not sure why. As I've made clear enough times, not victim blaming is saying "you did nothing to deserve the treatment that you got". It's not saying "you've never done anything wrong in your whole life". However shitty I think Adria's behaviour was at pycon, that does not mean I think she deserved or even 'asked for' the abuse she got on the Internet. BUT, I'm allowed to think that her behaviour at Pycon was shitty. And I do.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Dongle Man" doesn't even have a name. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

You know, it could just be that the feature has something to do with the fact that Adria is a minor celebrity in tech, and dongle guy is just a lowly programmer lacking a massive twitter following. Not everything has to be reduced to gender differences.

Josephine, I don't have time to respond in more detail. It does seem from lilbuddha's link that there is more to the backstory, and I read Gayle's post with interest. It seems possible that Adria's actions were a fairly crappy lapse in judgement, rather than a continuation of a pattern. One thought:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, that link is like a primer in how to discredit a woman.

But either way, it's a link by a woman discrediting a woman who discredited another woman. In that case, I'm not sure how much it has to do with a culture of men discrediting women (aside from the comments section).

Leorning, I'd agree with all that. I'd also be interested if anyone still thinks that "repo" man did anything wrong and also deserved to get chucked out of the conference. He seems, to me, to be simply the victim of a misunderstanding by association with dongle man.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Did you read the article by Amanda Blum? This isn't folks. This is someone who knows Adria, and gives specific examples of her prior crappy behaviour.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As I've made clear enough times, not victim blaming is saying "you did nothing to deserve the treatment that you got". It's not saying "you've never done anything wrong in your whole life". However shitty I think Adria's behaviour was at pycon, that does not mean I think she deserved or even 'asked for' the abuse she got on the Internet. BUT, I'm allowed to think that her behaviour at Pycon was shitty. And I do.

Oh, you go well beyond condemning Ms. Richards' behavior at PyCon. Apparently you consider her actions in other circumstances to be the critical factor in whether or not anything she says is credible. Insisting that the only women who are allowed to lodge a complaint are those who have "never done anything wrong in [their] whole life" seems like an incredibly effective way of shutting women's ability to complain about anything.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Oh, you go well beyond condemning Ms. Richards' behavior at PyCon. Apparently you consider her actions in other circumstances to be the critical factor in whether or not anything she says is credible.

No, I blatantly don't. Because, before reading Amanda Blum's article, I thought that Adria's actions were wrong, and posted here as much. I was happy to believe that they were a one-off lapse of judgment. Amanda Blum's article suggested that they fitted a pattern of behaviour. If Amanda Blum's article is misleading, then the pattern of behaviour is obviously wrong. But, that doesn't stop me thinking that Adria's actions at pycon were wrong. I've been consistent in saying that since the start, and given reasons why, before I'd read any of what Amanda said.

And once again, thinking that someone's actions were wrong in one matter is NOT victim blaming in another, unless you want to assert that all victims are 100% blameless in everything else they've ever done. It's you that appears to be making that assertion, not me.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Insisting that the only women who are allowed to lodge a complaint are those who have "never done anything wrong in [their] whole life" seems like an incredibly effective way of shutting women's ability to complain about anything.

What was that I was saying about misrepresenting me? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And once again, thinking that someone's actions were wrong in one matter is NOT victim blaming in another, unless you want to assert that all victims are 100% blameless in everything else they've ever done. It's you that appears to be making that assertion, not me.

I disagree. Saying that someone's actions were wrong in one matter ("specific examples of her prior crappy behaviour") and considering that evidence of wrongness in everything else is classic victim blaming. In other contexts the term "slut shaming" would apply.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Insisting that the only women who are allowed to lodge a complaint are those who have "never done anything wrong in [their] whole life" seems like an incredibly effective way of shutting women's ability to complain about anything.
What was that I was saying about misrepresenting me?

Well, if you're not claiming that "prior crappy behaviour" is evidence of present untrustworthiness, why bring it up? Why do you consider it relevant?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, if you're not claiming that "prior crappy behaviour" is evidence of present untrustworthiness, why bring it up? Why do you consider it relevant?

Once again you're putting words into my mouth so that you can refute them. I never said anything doubting her trustworthiness.

The crappy behaviour was the way she dealt (or didn't deal) with confrontation. The two examples Amanda Blum gave were again about the way she dealt with confrontation. I think that dealing with confrontation in that way is shitty behaviour. I posted to fair length about why. That's it.

You've got some caricature of what a sexist victim blamer is, assumed that I fit it, and argued with me as if I do. That makes you very difficult to engage with, because you're arguing against stuff I never said, and ignoring the things I have said that don't fit your caricature. You did it when we were talking about things that women can do to help protect themselves, and you're doing it again here.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The crappy behaviour was the way she dealt (or didn't deal) with confrontation. The two examples Amanda Blum gave were again about the way she dealt with confrontation. I think that dealing with confrontation in that way is shitty behaviour. I posted to fair length about why. That's it.

Is it possible, though, that you were willing to accept what Amanda Blum said about Adria pretty much without question because it fit with certain cultural stereotypes about how women should or should not behave?

We all find it easier to accept information that fits our pre-existing mental paradigms, even when (and especially when) we're not really aware of the paradigms, because they function as axioms about "the way things are." Data points that fit the paradigms "stick," reinforcing the paradigms. Data points that don't fit are either not noticed at all, or discarded as outliers.

And are you absolutely certain that if it had been a man snapping the picture and tweeting it at the conference, your judgment would have been no different? Review that little cartoon I linked to. Because, unless you're an extremely unusual person (and you may well be), it's extremely unlikely that Adria being a woman has no effect on the way you interpret and judge her behavior. It's possible. But it's something that would take a lot of reflection to be certain about.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

goperryrevs is beginning to seem a bit outnumbered, and this is a fascinating issue, so forgive me if I jump in.

It certainly is true that we all have unconscious prejudices, so what if we tell this story without gender. I know that doesn't work at all as a way to think about the men's behaviors, but it seems relevant re Adria's behavior.

Two people are talking in a public venue and telling somewhat smutty jokes. Well, one was smutty adn the other one seemed smutty to person 3 who was bloody sick of it. So 3 took to the internet in outrage and posted pictures of everyone included. etc.

I'm still feeling that I fully support 3 right up until he or she posts peoples' pictures without permission.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm still feeling that I fully support 3 right up until he or she posts peoples' pictures without permission.

Yes, I think we're all pretty much agreed on that, aren't we? And the shit then doled out to 3 was totally OTT? And a lot of it - this is where the genderless thing breaks down - was specifically about her gender.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm still feeling that I fully support 3 right up until he or she posts peoples' pictures without permission.
Yes, I think we're all pretty much agreed on that, aren't we? And the shit then doled out to 3 was totally OTT? And a lot of it - this is where the genderless thing breaks down - was specifically about her gender.

Fair enough, if we are. I wasn't sure that Josephine did agree. I thought her words to gopherrevs might be saying he was perhaps objecting to Adria's posting etc. because she was a woman.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, if you're not claiming that "prior crappy behaviour" is evidence of present untrustworthiness, why bring it up? Why do you consider it relevant?

Hang on. Outside a law court, where it would probably be inadmissible, "prior crappy behaviour" is evidence of present untrustworthiness.

If someone (and I am expressing no opinion at all about Ms. Richards here - this is a general comment) has demonstrated in the past that they consistently lie, or misrepresent people to their own advantage, then it is more likely that their current statements aren't completely honest than if their past behaviour had been fully truthful.

So how does this differ from "slut shaming"? Quite a lot, I think. The premise behind "slut shaming" is that if a woman has had sex, or has had sex with several different men, or enjoys sex, then clearly she was really consenting to sex with her rapist because, well, she likes sex, doesn't she, and she had sex,so what's the problem? Which is nonsense.

Now, it's true that if you have two women, one of whom is sexually promiscuous and one of whom is a nun, then a priori the nun is less likely to consent to sex with some man she meets, and so if she reports a rape, the nun is very slightly more likely to be telling the truth than the other woman. That statement is mathematically correct, but misleading, because the prior probabilities here are very close (although not exactly equal) and are immediately dwarfed by the slightest hint of actual evidence.

So "slut shaming" is logically incorrect, because the fact that a woman is a "slut" doesn't actually carry significant information about whether or not she might have consented to sex with her rapist.

On the other hand, if a politician tells you he's not going to raise taxes, and then adds a whole load of "fees" for services that pretty much everyone has to use, we don't call it "politician shaming" to point out that the next time he says "no more taxes," he might not be being entirely honest with us.

Coming back to Ms. Richards, I think the evidence that she has a history of thin-skinned overreaction in order to promote herself (as has been claimed) is pretty thin. So whilst I think that the use of her previous behaviour is rather more like "politician shaming" than "slut shaming," and so is fair, I think the evidence of her "history of nastiness" isn't really there.

[Edit: somehow spellcheck substituted the word "relationship" for "rapist." That's not terribly helpful of it.]

[ 01. April 2013, 16:23: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The crappy behaviour was the way she dealt (or didn't deal) with confrontation. The two examples Amanda Blum gave were again about the way she dealt with confrontation. I think that dealing with confrontation in that way is shitty behaviour. I posted to fair length about why. That's it.
Is it possible, though, that you were willing to accept what Amanda Blum said about Adria pretty much without question because it fit with certain cultural stereotypes about how women should or should not behave?

We all find it easier to accept information that fits our pre-existing mental paradigms, even when (and especially when) we're not really aware of the paradigms, because they function as axioms about "the way things are." Data points that fit the paradigms "stick," reinforcing the paradigms. Data points that don't fit are either not noticed at all, or discarded as outliers.

And are you absolutely certain that if it had been a man snapping the picture and tweeting it at the conference, your judgment would have been no different? Review that little cartoon I linked to. Because, unless you're an extremely unusual person (and you may well be), it's extremely unlikely that Adria being a woman has no effect on the way you interpret and judge her behavior. It's possible. But it's something that would take a lot of reflection to be certain about.

Of course it's possible - I've wondered about that myself. But honestly, I'm pretty sure I know what my motivation was in this. You see, right and wrong ways of going about confrontation is one of my bugbears.

Without going into details, one of my biggest regrets was the way I handled one confrontation in my own life. Rather than taking the opportunity to confront someone directly, I wussed out and let other people do it on my behalf. That experience, and the gradual realisation of how shitty my behaviour was (not in how the conflict arose in the first place, but how I dealt with it once it had) shaped in a big way how I see confrontation. Most people don't like doing it, and instead we replace it with things like gossip, backbiting, going over people's heads, internalising our emotions and projection. We think that doing those things aren't that bad, as in a sense they make us 'feel' like we've dealt with the conflict. But essentially, that's just justifying our own cowardice. And the worst thing is that ISTM that it's one of the biggest causes of relationship breakdown and enmity. Since going through that experience I've seen other people's lives and relationships messed up simply because they or someone else has handled confrontation badly.

So, when someone doesn't confront things in the right way, it sets off massive alarm bells in my head. The way that Adria handled the confrontation was the thing that struck me first. Not that she was a woman, or a woman in tech. Or had conflict with two men in tech. That stuff honestly came to me second. But, to me, her actions (and later justification for them) were classic confrontation-avoidance. And I've seen the damage that avoiding conflict can have, and I think that it's something that we trivialise way too easily, because it usually leads to a chain of events that can damage lots of people, including ourselves - as it did here.

So I'm sure I'm biased, maybe in the way that you suggest, just as you were perhaps biased against the guys because of your experience in tech. But I'm pretty sure that my main bias was to do with handling confrontation, not gender projection.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Josephine

I read the exchange of emails between Amanda Blum and Adria Richards and I don't read them the same way as Gayle McDowell does.

I've spoken at conferences. Normal form is you stick to your own brief and leave concerns about any other presentations to the event organisers - or give your own feedback after listening to them. If, exceptionally, you get a late concern about conference content you don't start with an ultimatum to the organisers and the announcement that you've already made your objections public. viz

quote:
Amanda,
I am very offended by one of the Ignite sessions and mentioned on my show today that if it goes forward as one of the presentation, I will not attend Wordcamp Boston.

I could understand an email which said something like this

quote:
Amanda

I regret very much but I'm going to have to withdraw at very short notice. Clearly I can't expect you to change the programme at this stage but on principle I can't attend with this particular Ignite session there. (Give Reasons)

I appreciate this is a breach of promise on my behalf and if you're subject to additional costs, I'm happy to discuss those with you. I appreciate there will be some inconvenience to you in any case. But this is an important matter of principle with me and I hope you can understand that. I'd like to meet up with you after the event to discuss my reasons with you. I think this might be mutually helpful.

That's not just about a difference in style is it? It's about respect. Given the openers which Adria actually used, I'm not surprised Amanda Blum was miffed. In the circs, I thought her email reply was very reasonable, if a bit sharp here and there.

Gayle McDowell seems to me to have missed that. There are ways and means of doing things. I didn't think much of Adria Richards' way.

[ 01. April 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, that link is like a primer in how to discredit a woman.
But either way, it's a link by a woman discrediting a woman who discredited another woman. In that case, I'm not sure how much it has to do with a culture of men discrediting women (aside from the comments section).

Who says only men are proponents of misogyny?

[URL=][/URL] Observe.

See, that's at least half the problem; when a man and a woman get in a public dispute, not only is a woman subjected to intense scrutiny and culturally enabled dismissal by various men, she can look forward to half her female colleagues jumping on the bandwagon as well.

quote:
Leorning, I'd agree with all that. I'd also be interested if anyone still thinks that "repo" man did anything wrong and also deserved to get chucked out of the conference. He seems, to me, to be simply the victim of a misunderstanding by association with dongle man.

I am total in agreement about that one.For my part, I was working on the premise that "repo" meant something like "representative," and started out thinking his comment was worse. Someone who knew the phraseology really doesn't have that excuse.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Okay, Josephine, I've done some reading. Here's my thoughts. I've tried to be comprehensive, but I'm wary that I don't want to hijack the thread!

Rape of Mr Smith. Really good. It has made me think about Amanda Blum's article. I think there are some differences, though. If it was a case of "this is why Adria Richards is a nasty person" - especially if it was by a man, I would have been more suspicious. Because it was "this is how Adria Richards has also handled conflict poorly in the past", and it was by a fellow woman in the tech industry, I trusted it more - it had relevance to the situation, and wasn't just vilification. But Kelly's point is right, and I should have been aware of that. I don't think there's enough evidence either way - in support or against Amanda Blum's article - to come to a conclusion.

John Laws - sounds like a total douchebag. Not just the suggestion of victim blaming - the complete lack of simple sensitivity was horrendous.

The John Wright article on wolf-whistling. Totally disagree with him, and his argument sucks. Wolf-whistling makes me cringe. I used to work with a guy who was a teddy boy who drove along Lowestoft seafront beeping his horn at pretty girls. He was a lovely guy in lots of ways, but I always hated that kind of thing.

The "What does a rapist look for in a woman?" and snopes refute were really interesting. I think the point that they prove is that it's easy to assume, and end up being totally inaccurate, when it comes to things that women can do to reduce opportunities for rapists. I still don't think that it's not worth thinking about those things (and being informed by genuine information, rather than urban myths). I've not spent a lot of time looking into these "things that women should do to protect themsleves" articles, so the #safteytipsforladies thing didn't rankle me in the way that I can understand it might some people. But I do have female friends and family who have a pretty established pattern when they go out at night. There is a core group of them that go out, and one time a younger sister came too. This girl broke all the 'rules' that they have learned to follow together. She kept leaving her drink unattended for long periods before she came back to it. She disappeared for an hour without telling the others where she was going, leaving her mobile phone behind. She ended up going back to a guy's house without telling them. Nothing untoward happened to her, but the next day, they gave her a bollocking. She hadn't thought about her own safety, or how her friends that she was out with could help her if she got in trouble. I understand that there are a lot of urban myths out there on this kind of thing, but it strikes me that the solution isn't to therefore say that everything's an urban myth, and there's nothing people can do, but to eliminate the urban myths. I think that the stuff the girls do when they go out (sticking in groups, telling each other where they're going, watching their drinks, keeping their phones with them) are all sensible things to do.

Julia Gillard. A friend and I were actually talking about her this week (his wife is Australian), saying that the double standards she's been treated with are horrendous and unfair. Compared to many other countries, Australia isn't doing that bad, and hasn't been hit to the same extent by the recession, so it's not as if she's even doing that bad a job. One thing that struck me about the article was the thing about using first names to refer to women but surnames to refer to men. I've been guilty of that in this thread, and I can see how it's wrong. I'll try to change that habit in the future.

"He's assertive, she's a bitch". Yeah, I've come across this type of stuff before, and the double standards are crap. There used to be a comedy show here in Britain that had a series of sketches. There were the invisible woman sketches, and ones with a woman who was incredibly confident and straight talking, until a man walked in the room, when she turned into a giggling girl who hung on his every word (can't find examples of that sketch - the show is almost 20 years old!).

In general, I think that the stuff you link to makes a lot of good points, and I agree with the vast majority of it. And I think it does talk into our culture insightfully. My main problem with relating it readily to the PyCon case, is that that's one isolated case. A culture is made up of lots of individual people and events. I can see why you'd then want to project that culture back onto an individual case and make assumptions, but a statistic of one doesn't have a great standard deviation. Knowing a general sexist culture exists doesn't mean that you can take one (or two, in this case) men within that culture and assume that it exists in their heads. I've probably made that point enough times already, but I do think it's very pertinent. And again, the only problem I have with Ms Richard's behavior was the way she dealt with conflict and confrontation. I understand that some people might not think that's too big a deal, but for me (for reasons I've given in the previous post), I think it's such an important issue. I've probably indulged in too much speculation as to why she acted as she did, but the motivation was to try to understand her, not to vilify her.

---

Croesos, I wanted to make sure I wasn't going mad, so I've re-read all our exchanges on this thread. I counted nine times where you've put words in my mouth or accused me of saying something I haven't. Once or twice is a reasonable misunderstanding, but nine is too many. I'd really appreciate it if you'd engage what I'm actually saying, rather than projecting stuff onto it that I'm not. Thanks.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

Croesos, I wanted to make sure I wasn't going mad, so I've re-read all our exchanges on this thread. I counted nine times where you've put words in my mouth or accused me of saying something I haven't. Once or twice is a reasonable misunderstanding, but nine is too many. I'd really appreciate it if you'd engage what I'm actually saying, rather than projecting stuff onto it that I'm not. Thanks.

In view of this comment, I'm going to take another detailed look at these exchanges. My current view is that each post has been within the 10Cs guidelines.

May I remind you both about the need to avoid escalating any clashes of personality in Purgatory. You may use the option of a Hell call if you get too cheesed off.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm still feeling that I fully support 3 right up until he or she posts peoples' pictures without permission.
Yes, I think we're all pretty much agreed on that, aren't we? And the shit then doled out to 3 was totally OTT? And a lot of it - this is where the genderless thing breaks down - was specifically about her gender.
Fair enough, if we are. I wasn't sure that Josephine did agree. I thought her words to gopherrevs might be saying he was perhaps objecting to Adria's posting etc. because she was a woman.

I did think that goperryrev's reaction to Adria's tweet of the photo might have been largely or entirely because Adria is a woman, and that the response might have been different had Adria been Adrian. I accept goperryrev's assertion that appropriate conflict management is one of his major issues, and so Adria's gender is less likely to be an issue with him, although it may still be so for others.

And I'll accept that Adria's tweeting of the photo wasn't a textbook example of effective conflict management. I guess my point on this thread has been that, for a woman in a business setting, and in particular in the tech industry, there is no such thing as effective conflict management if the conflict is between her and a couple of men. She can't possibly win. She can't break even. So she can either concede the game, or she can decide to play by a different set of rules.

Adria chose the latter option.

And I'm not entirely sure whether, in the overall scheme of things, that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'd honestly like to say that it's a bad thing, and that she should have done the sorts of things one does to manage conflict effectively without embarrassing anyone or damaging relationships or risking jobs (although I can't imagine that she or anyone else could have predicted that anyone would have gotten fired over it).

The problem with that, though, is that those things just don't work. Men didn't stop groping women at work because women asked them nicely. They stopped because the laws changed, so employer policies changed, and men started getting fired for groping coworkers.

And some years ago, I was reading a great deal of research on the subject of domestic violence. And one study looked at marriages where there had been violence, and the couple had stayed married, but the violence had stopped. That doesn't happen often. When it does, the most likely reason is violence or the credible threat of violence against the perpetrator by male relatives of the victim. I don't think beating the crap out of a man because he beat the crap out of your sister is the right thing to do. But I know that the usual alternatives -- restraining orders, anger management classes, and the like -- usually don't work, and often put the woman at greater risk of harm. And the research showed that the brother and his friends beating the crap out of the man could stop the violence. It's not a conventional form of conflict management. It's not a good form. But it's apparently effective.

We live in a broken world. Sometimes we don't get to choose between a good thing and a bad thing. Sometimes the choice is between two things that are bad in different ways. So, yeah, I don't think it was a good thing for Adria to tweet the photo of the guys. But I'm not sure that doing so was the worst of the available alternatives.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

And working towards a culture where women are allowed to set their own boundaries without being told that she's wrong for doing so, and that, you know, the behavior she's objecting to is really a compliment, and she should just get over herself and enjoy it.

I think the concept that a woman should be able to set her own personal boundaries of what is acceptable to her in terms of personal interraction is the correct one to follow. Further, I think the case for a more proactive response to examples of rape culture (as described here) both in places of work and more generally, is conclusive. I agree that we should work together in support of that.

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.

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.

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?

[ 02. April 2013, 06:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Actually, I am offended as a man. What offends me is that jokes about bits are often just an excuse for objectification. As if sex was just some kind of mechanical thing; nothing to do with our deepest feelings, our vulnerabilities.

Dunno, maybe other people are less sensitive about it. What's beyond contradiction are two things;

a) it went against conference policy
b) it got up my nose anyway.

So, if you like, I'm mixing personal distaste (which I would feel free to express) with conference rules (which I would have seen as being crossed). I'm free to have an opinion on both matters.

Adjudicating on the conference rules points is up to the organisers. If I'm there, I'm free to have an opinion on that, take action on the basis of that opinion, but abide by what the organisers end up doing.

Does that make my POV clearer? YMMV of course but that's where I'm coming from.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

Yep that's clearer. I think it's an important point because much of the discussion has been about sexism when I cannot see that in this particular instance.

It's an interesting question on objectification - a good proportion of comedy (stand up, on tv etc) relies on jokes about bits. It would be an interesting question whether this contributes to a demeaning of our attitudes towards sex and other people. However, conflating jokes about bits with sexism is not helpful (imo).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.)

[ 02. April 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Added to address x-post.

Sexism is often about context, not merely content. While an individual's intent may not be sexist, it is understandable that one may perceive it to be. When sexism is dead and gone, when the workplace is truly about ability, then such incidents will merely be about offense.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

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.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

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?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Completely agreed re the issues of comment on the internet and how low people sink. In fact, I've started a thread on it.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

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?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

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.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

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

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ 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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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 . . .

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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?

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

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.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

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".

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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]

[ 03. April 2013, 12:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Marvin, I think you must work at a much freer place than some I have worked at. I work at a lovely university now where I feel pretty safe. However, much of my career I have spent at places where I very much felt anything I said could be used against me. I'd say stapling one's mouth shut at work is generally a good idea!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Being retired, I was thinking social context. Work cultures vary a lot: until you get to know them, it's normally best to do a lot of listening to start with. The cost of careless words can be high at work for a whole variety of reasons. Cultivate mysterious obedience! But not too much. People may mistake it for wisdom ...

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
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.

Blatant sexism, in the form of porn being slipped into powerpoints, or of men feeling free to touch their co-workers without consent, hasn't been an issue in my last couple of jobs. Changes in laws led to changes in policies, which led to changes in behavior and culture, and I think that kind of thing has become relatively rare.

But what's not yet rare is the "he's assertive, she's a bitch" standard. Leadership qualities in men are viewed as good things, which leads to men with those qualities being seen as promotable, and getting promotions. Those same qualities in women are viewed as bad things, which leads to women with those qualities being seen as bitchy, and women without them as weak, so women are far, far less likely to get promoted into leadership positions.

That's a lot more subtle than a man patting a woman on the butt as he passes her in the hallway. But it is sexism, it's pervasive (not just in IT), and it's a problem. It's especially a problem because people tend not to see it even when it's happening right in front of them.

And the whole story with PyCon seems to me to fit the pattern. As I've said before, it's possible that Adria is an ill-mannered bitch. Just like it's possible that a black kid who is doing poorly in school is lazy. But those stereotypes are too easy to pull out, and too easy to accept. When you hear something that fits into that kind of stereotyped narrative, I think your initial position has to be to reject it until it's proven true, not to accept it until it's proven false.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Rape culture is alive and well in the tech industry. And people wonder why more girls don't go into STEM professions.

quote:
But what's not yet rare is the "he's assertive, she's a bitch" standard.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Oh, come on moron. Josephine's posted at length to clarify her position. You don't have to agree with her, but you can do better than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But what's not yet rare is the "he's assertive, she's a bitch" standard. Leadership qualities in men are viewed as good things, which leads to men with those qualities being seen as promotable, and getting promotions. Those same qualities in women are viewed as bad things, which leads to women with those qualities being seen as bitchy, and women without them as weak, so women are far, far less likely to get promoted into leadership positions.

I'm sure you're right. And I believe there are still similar dynamics for racism, such as the disproportionately common black guy dies first in Hollywood plots. Blacks must be less integral and more disposable characters than whites.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Where there is unreformed sexism about, I'm sure Josephine has a strong point. Things are changing; not as quickly as many of us would like. But there's been a lot of movement.

This thread has made me think a lot, taken me back to my own roots. I think I started work as pretty much a rugged individualist and I also started my long term association with my local church maybe slightly modified in that, but still with pretty strong individualistic tendencies. I got married young, learned a heck of lot about the needs for co-operation through our "shakedown" and the processes of bringing up children.

At work, in several roles, the common characteristic was that I was a change agent. At church, I have always been a voice for change. And at home, with growing children, change was a way of life!

So I guess my response to this story was conditioned by a lot of those influences. What I think I learned, in our family "community", my work communities and my church community was how I could be more effective in both fostering and coping with change, rather than just following my "rugged individualist's" instincts. Good ideas and personal convictions are not enough. Purposeful action requires a lot of thought.

So I tend to read Adria as a bit of an individualist, with certainly a good agenda re sexist attitudes, but not particularly good at reading the ethos of her work community, the Twitter community, or the specialist short term communities which are conferences.

Maybe that's unfair, maybe in some ways her behaviour reminded me of some of the less effective actions of my more "rugged individualist" past personal history? But that's essentially the message I drew from the description of her actions and the blogs.

I don't know much about Twitter communities other than to know that lots of folks get fun out of them, but sometimes they seem to become prone to mob rule. I guess that would make me cautious about making political use of them. I do know a lot more about business communities and conference communities. From what I know, I'd tend to ask around, take soundings over any business and conference management dimensions associated with an individual act of publicity. I'd sniff the air, smell some potential danger and take a bit of advice. Well, I would have from about the age of 30 onwards. Is that micromanagement, prudent caution, self-preservation or lack of conviction? Well, it might be bits of the first three but certainly not the fourth in this case. I'm convinced of the need to make sexism unacceptable in the work place, judge folks on their merits. One of which is how well we've learned the need to work with others.

These are the sort of ideas which have motivated my opinions here. I agree about the need sometimes to make a stand. But if you want to be in the change agent business long term, I think it's important to spot and form links with potential allies, learn how to work with the grain of the different cultures we swim in. Some of them can be shark-infested seas. it's important to recognise that as well.

Grateful as always to other contributors for their contrasting insights. I've learned from you. Yet again.

[ 05. April 2013, 07:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0