Rolling 'this is sexist' thread

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

I am very pointedly not saying "you are either with us or against us"; I am saying "you are with them; are you sure you want to be?"

and i'm saying put me with them if you like, i guess.

you can't have your dongle and eat it too

I mean if it's yr view that anything but unqualified beatification of adria is 'you're with them' then i cant see any point in pretending that's not 'against us'

o plz

How, exactly, is "Adria did nothing to deserve the bullshit that's been slung her way" equivalent to unqualified beatification?

choosing to damn both sides (even if unequally) isn't being objective, it's making a choice that has pragmatic connotations just like choosing to focus on one or the other side.

I should that doesn't mean we're condemned to this particular "either/or" but we'd have to think carefully about how to get beyond it in a way that doesn't boil down to "well she fucked up a little too."

the same equivalence that states that thinking her posting the pics on twitter wasn't a great move is equivalent to approval of every vile internet comment slung her way since xps

Xpost: mainly because saying that isn't really past the original "either/or" we're stuck in.

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