Rolling 'this is sexist' thread

I think theirs is the comparison he is making between "two arguments"' although it may not be clear:

The arguments now appear to be that either Adria fucked up and for this reason she deserved to get rape threats, or that since she got rape threats she cannot possibly have fucked up.

His own opinion of overreaction isn't what I was really interested in, but sure, these can also be seen as strawmen and detract from the original situation's importance. But really, at this point, hearing from others or encouraging other people to share their experiences should be the focus, and not the micro-analyzing of this one situation, which really is a lot less polarizing than I think it's drawn into.

however casual your workplace is, it's still a place of business regardless of the industry, and really about the only industries I can think of that might be able to make a case for people not being offended by constant dick jokes are comedy and porn, and even there you've got a contextual component that can't be handwaved (you probably shouldn't expect the porn company's accountant to have to put up with sexual innuendo, for example)

the entire argument of "it wasn't sexist, it was sexual" is monumentally stupid because any sensible person is NOT GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT SEX AT WORK BECAUSE YOU COULD GET FIRED FOR THAT SHIT

But really, at this point, hearing from others or encouraging other people to share their experiences should be the focus, and not the micro-analyzing of this one situation, which really is a lot less polarizing than I think it's drawn into.

what exactly is the incentive for anyone to share their experiences with this type of thing beyond attracting the attention of a mob of sexist, racist dicks?

idk, I apologize, I briefly read it and Tom is generally a voice of some reason, but this apparently isn't his finest hour

something about this whole thing just feels so "SEE, I TOLD YOU WE SHOULDN'T LET GIRLS IN THE TREEHOUSE!"

Because even sexist, racist dicks might eventually catch on that this is a common experience and can't be written off as one person's opinion?

i think the hysteria in response to Richards is interesting since it's basically a response to the fact by tweeting the photo she effectively re-contextualized what was happening--or put differently she made manifest the implicit misogyny of such jokes.

this freaks people out because it raises the possibility of being held accountable to contexts that they didn't choose for themselves. it would be not unlike putting pictures of war atrocities in the middle east on the handles of gas pumps, or approaching every person with a macbook and describing the working conditions of the chinese workers who made them.

the idea that you, yes even you, are complicit in forms of oppression is one most people will instinctively and even quite violently reject.

Now that it's a week later, I can't find it, but there was a twitter hashtag going of anecdotes that was excellent, and while there was some noise from the idiot crowd, it was overall a positive thing. I mean, as positive as people sharing bad experiences can be.

Ryan, you're right in that making the jump from a sexist comment labeling an individual a sexist (which is usually less than useful in the purposes of conversation) is something that gets violent rejection. I think the knee-jerk thing here is that the original incident had sexual comments, but not necessarily sexist comments. The problem is that there's a group that refuses to acknowledge that this was a female-hostile space, or at least one in which women would very obviously feel their minority status in the room, and any sexualized comment, even if not obliquely sexist, would affirm the majority's standing.

Acknowledging social or institutional sexism is something I struggle at some days, and I'd guess a fair portion of the most idiotic-sounding people haven't even heard of the concept.

Their outrage is somewhat along the same lines as the complaints of racists/sexists/homophobes who feel that any moves legal or otherwise that limit discrimination are somehow also limiting liberty because it's no longer socially or legally acceptable to act in an offensive manner.

xp I don't know that's quite right - you can't really argue that atrocities and terrible working conditions aren't happening, you can just argue your distance from them / they would happen anyway. Whereas with this you can go straight for "lol she can't take a joke" and carry on with your day.

even just saying "i am offended by that" will get an eye-roll usually at best. in a utopian society these sorts of exchanges would go both ways (in that both people have to take account of both subjective experiences of the situation) but in what orbit calls the "public sphere" and more generally the historical, structural, and institutional prevalence of sexism the context is there before either of the conversants are. that has to be continually accounted for and certainly requires a great deal of humility for those in positions of privilege. but it's not that hard in the end: just listen, be accommodating, and generously take account of the unaccountability of another person's subjective experience and you'll be in the clear 99% of the time.

you're right andrew--not an exact equivalent.

judging from a presentation I attended last week, "a great deal of humility" is still in short supply in the developer community, regardless of topic. urgh.

what was the makeup like at pycon vs. say other conferences?

i also think behind some of this there's a bit of mourning of the old boy's club ideal in which common ground (and thus inclusion) is founded things that are rather superficial (having a penis, being heterosexual, being white, being rich)--in place of the ease of such interactions we are forced to account for others in a way that seems to be approaching radical individuality (hence the continued subdivisions of personal identity and concomitant things to take offense at, even the emerging "subjecthood" of animals). this can be precarious since language and group identity are often founded on logics of implicit exclusion.

language is a system of difference iirc, words are defined by their unlikeness from other words.

yep--and we're approaching (or have arrived at) a point at which we become "accountable" for the distinctions or differences we can't help but employ.

language is a system of difference iirc, words are defined by their unlikeness from other words.

nah, we changed our minds about that like 20 years ago. now we define words by how funny they sound.

pro-tip tho: there was no bad behavior on her part

I still don't think it's okay to take a deliberate and direct photograph of someone without their permission.

the possibility of being held accountable to contexts that they didn't choose for themselves is a very disturbing thing, you're right. This can mean several different things, of course.

I wonder if people got as upset about having their picture taken back before everybody had a goddamn camera they were walking around with.

and said cameras couldn't beam pictures they'd just taken across the globe wirelessly and without cost or hassle

It's really only "disturbing" when the message is taken from a context in which the speaker is powerful, and put into a context in which they are less powerful or more equal to others, because it shows what assumptions they were making for and about their audience.

You could, I guess, argue the logical but unpleasant scenario of taking a pic of a woman in a place where she was comfortable and showing it to a bunch of ppl who would then be able to judge her and disempower her but uh that's pretty much every day irl just so you know.

I still don't think it's okay to take a deliberate and direct photograph of someone without their permission.

this is still and will remain an entirely bullshit argument whose only practical effect is to explicitly or implicitly advance the idea that she deserved the response she got, which included rape threats, death threats, name-calling (including racist slurs) and receiving sole blame/credit for some other company that she has no direct connection to deciding to fire an employee who was being an unprofessional jackass while wearing their logo.

agreed

esp since taking photos of ppl without their permission is, like, how journalism happens.

"I still think it's wrong to get caught in the act of doing something wrong".

I still think it's wrong to get caught in the act of doing something dongle.

I disagree in that the photo is much more interesting and damning because it captured practically the entire audience.

any sensible person is NOT GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT SEX AT WORK BECAUSE YOU COULD GET FIRED FOR THAT SHIT

I thought of this thread earlier when our sysadmin told an off-colour joke (a propos of completely nothing that I can remember) to our new lead developer, who started today and had at that point been in the office for maybe 2 hours. What makes someone think this is a good idea for the first (maybe second) conversation they've ever had with someone?

iirc she took the photo to identify the dude in question for the conference organizers! imagine the futility if she had instead tried to describe the offending party:

"he's a white guy, average height, short brown hair with a goatee, wearing jeans, sneakers, a polo shirt, and a black hoodie.

yeah that really narrows it down at a tech conference

xp I can totally imagine the main dude-I-have-nearly-dropped-a-dime-on at work doing that, just to establish that the newcomer can take a joke.

That is what post-work beers are for

Right but there is utility, from this dude's point of view, in determining that the new guy can put up with shit in work rather than just after. And to establish that he'll have to.

Should have put the joke in the interview process then

There is also utility in having a good HR department

"Please evaluate these hash functions and also the following princess Diana/9-11 jokes"

"Where do you see yourself in five years?"

"What do you think are your best and worst qualities?"

"What's the difference between a Jew and a lasagna?"

A: eggplant

or alternatively:

"A lasagna doesn't ENJOY getting baked...if you know what I mean bro. L'chaim."

this is still and will remain an entirely bullshit argument whose only practical effect is to explicitly or implicitly advance the idea that she deserved the response she got,

It's not an 'argument,' and I don't believe that she deserved the response that she got, in any way.

no, there is literally no space for a third view here

heh

Once you throw dogma out the window there's plenty of room for ambivalence.

i am laughing so much at the idea that taking photographs of random people is not ok to do, ever

throw every high-school senior in a photography class in jail

Yes!

especially don't photograph cops, they hate it

dismantle the surveillance infrastructure of our modern police state, while we're at it

no, there is literally no space for a third view here

the third view you're talking about is only accessible to some of the people participating in this conversation

richards used a photograph to identify a person who was in violation of the conference guidelines. her use of photography is only being scolded as 'wrong' because it gave her agency and subverted the established hierarchy

let's see whether that argument still holds up the next time its proponents encounter a 'booth babe' at their next trade show

"you're either with us or against us" is p much always a terrible educational/persuasive tool ime djp, my experience of course is irrelevant but hey it's the only one i got

the real point is that the more you go on about all of the "mistakes" Adria Richards made in this situation, the more you excuse the heaping pile of shit that was dumped on her; the situation really is that binary, and if you can't tell that from the legion of comments trailing every single fucking article and blog post that's been written about this and disseminated to the wider community, open your fucking eyes