Rolling 'this is sexist' thread

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

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