Rolling 'this is sexist' thread

final point being you're choosing sides even when (especially when) you think you aren't.

I hate having my picture taken, hate HATE hate, but it's an occupational hazard. taking a picture of me at dinner would under most circumstances be bullshit; however if I am in public talking a lot of offensive bullshit and you're having to listen to it guess what I am consenting to have you document my assholism. don't want somebody whose comfort you're totally oblivious to taking your picture, maybe dial back the sexist garbage and voila, Adria Richards isn't taking your picture. the "but is it wrong to post their picture! two wrongs don't" etc line doesn't arise if they themselves haven't already announced by their actions that they don't give a shit about decorum. people who think they get to call the shots about what counts as decorum and who has to follow its protocols when they themselves don't...are dicks and should have their pictures posted on the damn internet for me to laugh at, is what I'm saying

very otm

booming

i think part of the conflict among well-meaning people on this issue boils down to what "level of observation" you choose to proceed from.

feminist criticism proceeds from "patriarchy"--it's gonna observe that context and show how what happens is determined by that context. that also means feminism is gonna exclude certain things (just as discussed above in terms of the universality of exclusion). patriarchy is not capable of exhaustively determining the context for every social phenomenon.

but since such exclusions are in a sense universal that revelation doesn't invalidate feminism. quite the contrary. it's at this point of recognition that you take on accountability for siding with feminism (ie, that you observe patriarchy) in this case or against it. given the situation as best i can see it (the famously misogynistic atmosphere of a tech conference) it seems a no brainer to side with feminism here. but i dont get the last word.

There's a pretty huge leap from photojournalism to the slippery slope of cameraphone justice. I think those guys were pricks! But I won't ever think that invites "Snap. Twitter. GUILTY." That's insane, and seriously dangerous!

"seriously dangerous"

someone might be culpable for their gross behavior STOP HELP THIS IS MADNESS

apropos of nothing

but Limbaugh appears to be getting the message — in his own way. Two weeks ago, he misinterpreted new Beyonce lyrics as sending a message that “she married the rich guy” and “now understands it’s worth it to bow down” to her husband. The next day, he told listeners: “The news is out that of course I’m back into my misinge — , m — , m — , well, misoge — , right, right, whatever it is.”

oh Rushpaws

theres something appealingly tech-y about treating the unfolding of events as a unwanted outcome that can be traced back to a single bug in the system, i.e. adria richards taking a photo

i really thought/hoped pycon would be a bit more diverse than what that photo showed.

"seriously dangerous"
― ampersand cooper black (elmo argonaut)

Seriously dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=375ENQbru8s

dangerously serious

snap. twitter. GUILTY.

Not inaccurate tbf

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE SEXISTS

"nobody likes a squealer"

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that's what I've said? My point is more about how dangerous (I know Elmo doesn't care for that word, or finds that I'm being dramatic?) I think that court-by-cameraphone can be. It's not about defending sexists, it's about how slippery of a slope this kind of thing is. I don't know the whole story of anything just because I've seen a picture that somebody Tweeted - and I seem to see more and more of the types of pictures of people on Twitter where someone has taken a snap to run with a caption saying "this guy stole my guitar - anybody know him?" (or, more commonly, "look at this strange looking/poorly dressed/ugly person," but that's a different kind of damning). I guess the feeling here is that this is some kind of punk-rock justice, but I think it's a bit closer to the scarier side of things.

I shouldn't have to say that I also think those guys were dicks, and that I think that the people threatening that woman were heinous.

Not suggesting that's what you've said, Shakes, just summing up what I see as the larger tenor of a certain take on this case. I don't think this is "punk rock justice", not least since this story ended with the victim losing her job for speaking up, which doesn't sound too just to me.

I think we've all agreed on that tbf.

have we? glad to hear it!

was responding directly to I guess the feeling here is that this is some kind of punk-rock justice btw so

Sorry, I meant that the general feeling seemed to be that this type of 'naming & shaming'/taking-pictures-in-the-act thing was seen as a kind of punk-rock justice, not that justice had been done in this case. I don't think anyone should have lost their jobs here.

sorry, but that's bullshit. there were guidelines for how conference attendees were to behave. there were conference organizers tasked with making sure those guidelines were followed. she tweeted an identifying photo of the guy in violation and tagged it so the organizers would see it. it worked, and they pulled richards & the other guy aside to deal with the matter.

this wasn't justice via twitter mob, it was an extremely focused and effective appeal to the appropriate authority. that's not exactly "punk rock"

^^^ a thousand times yes

Seems to me that after taking a picture of those dudes and Tweeting "Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles. Right behind me #pycon," she then Tweeted, two minutes later, "Can someone talk to these guys about their conduct? I'm in lightning talks, top right near stage, 10 rows back #pycon" to over 12,000 people.
She didn't "@" anyone in the Tweet.
So she's asked "someone" to confront two dudes who will now be identifiable based on the photo she posted without any full explanation/context. And though some people in this thread believe that "twitter is a place generally accepted as a tool for frivolous chatter," I don't see it that way. That's a seriously dangerous (yep) way to deal with this type of situation.

seriously dangerous

lmao

http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/03/28/a-white-boys-observations-of-sexism-and-the-adria-richards-fiasco/

by contrast: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/31/bad-for-business-everyone-has-an-adria-richards-story/

FYI these were the top two personal blog opinion pieces that came back on my google search; I did not do any special searching or filtering aside from searching "Adria Richards" and discarding news stories

Also, the anti- story was ranked as more relevant than the pro- story.

I wouldn't recommend anyone clicking on that second link and giving the author the traffic; it's a hideous article.

they literally use that traffic to shoot down u.s. drones with black-market missiles. literally.

(although, haha yeah, ew.)

she tweeted an identifying photo of the guy in violation and tagged it so the organizers would see it

Why not just email the photo to the organizers then?

Because if you do it in public they're less likely to be able to brush it under the carpet/ignore your issue.

So she's asked "someone" to confront two dudes who will now be identifiable based on the photo she posted without any full explanation/context.

Having attended umpteen thousand professional conferences, I can promise you the appropriate people were monitoring the #pycon hashtag in real time and did not need to be @-addressed.

Because if you do it in public they're less likely to be able to brush it under the carpet/ignore your issue

So attempt to work it out in private first and then take it public if they try and brush it under the carpet.

Why?

Because that's the standard way of dealing with HR issues in organizations all over the world.

I missed the part of this where Adria Richards was affiliated with an HR department

SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS

Well, the incident didn't happen in private, did it? So why should Adria Richards keep her objections private? Besides, if she first went to the men or organizers privately and wasn't satisfied with their response, she'd be derided as some kind of extortionist if she told them 'fine, I'm gonna have to take this public'.

I've reported on people caught in the act of bullying while wearing a company shirt. Called the company rather than try to reach some sort of fake compromise with people who were assholes, because the only thing creating a problem between us was (wait for it) their behaviour. Were the bullies angry with me when I straight-up told them I'd reported them? Yes, of course they were, but I expected that the combination of belligerence and stupidity that underpinned their need to shit on other people also underpinned their denial of responsibility for the actions that brought us to that point.

"Can someone talk to these guys about their conduct?"

such a SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS request

what i'm hearing is: "why couldn't richards be more circumspect and ladylike before taking action? why didn't she employ less effective remedies first? as white men, don't these guys have a god-given RIGHT to save face once they're caught? isn't that in the u.s. constitution somewhere?"

Cant help what yr hearing

elmo totally otm. Also, to restate from upthread: "Why didn't she do what I, a white/man would have done?" "Why didn't she decide to use the same 'correct' strategies that I am equipped with/trained to use, like confrontation?"

I'm still amazed that one of the pieces of evidence used to show that Adria Richards is an unreasonable, divisive harpy who is looking for offense everywhere she goes is because she once objected to someone using porn metaphors in a professional presentation

Like, what the hell is wrong with these people?

adria richards is a misandrist who wants to take away your dick jokes and your gonzo porn, the danger is serious