3 ms·

The difference is that defecating in the hallways isn't a routine practice in our industry, but sexual harassment of the sort she describes is. There's a need

by pinko 14y ago

The difference is that defecating in the hallways isn't a routine practice in our industry, but sexual harassment of the sort she describes is. There's a need for more awareness and action within the community -- and a hands-off "let the law take care of it" attitude ignores that a lot of this happens out of the public eye, and can only be stopped when people close to it take a more public stand against it.

zalew 14y ago
I could stick the story she described to any industry, or even any bar in town and no industry at all.
jen_h 14y ago
The point is that sexual harassment shouldn't be routine and we shouldn't tolerate it. I sort of understand where the anti-harassment policy folks are coming from, but I vehemently disagree that it's appropriate to codify common decency and respect, especially in technical circles, where we should all know better. We should strive to treat each other with respect regardless of gender, race, or anything else for that matter and where we fail, we should call each other out and work to fix it.
- wpietri 14y ago
  I don't think a policy is just about codifying respect. It's also about putting together a mechanism for handling the inevitable failures. Consider the model policy from the Ada Initiative: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_anti-harassment_policy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_ant... A good chunk of that is about how the working-to-fix part works. I think that's really valuable to have thought through in advance. I have banned people before (never for this, thank goodness) and in the moment it's incredibly hard to avoid over- or under-reacting if you have to think everything through from first principles.
  - jen_h 14y ago
    Yeah, I get that--in crisis mode, a playbook is almost required to make sure you make no missteps as someone in charge. This is pivotal in, say, security incident response, or a corporate setting where there are all kinds of legal issues, but at a conference, which is mostly among friends, I don't know. Maybe if you can appropriately genericize the policy, but most of the policies I've seen have almost unilaterally been specifically tailored to protect women (which is great, for me--but maybe not for others who are being singled out). Or they'll talk about "feeling safe." But, you know, when that guy walked up to me when I was talking to my (male) colleagues and specifically singled me out to ask that I allow him to photograph my "tits" as part of a conference "scavenger hunt," I told him off. Then he came back, and I told him off again. I never felt "unsafe," just angry and humiliated. If you're looking at "reporting someone if you feel fear," then it's likely that poor guy had a high possibility of being the one reporting it had he come back a third time. tl;dr: Most of these policies make women and minorities out to be victims vs. ensuring that people just treat each other with common decency and respect. Not a fan of singling any of us out and I don't think it's productive.

by pinko 14y ago

zalew 14y ago

I could stick the story she described to any industry, or even any bar in town and no industry at all.

jen_h 14y ago

The point is that sexual harassment shouldn't be routine and we shouldn't tolerate it. I sort of understand where the anti-harassment policy folks are coming from, but I vehemently disagree that it's appropriate to codify common decency and respect, especially in technical circles, where we should all know better. We should strive to treat each other with respect regardless of gender, race, or anything else for that matter and where we fail, we should call each other out and work to fix it.

wpietri 14y ago
I don't think a policy is just about codifying respect. It's also about putting together a mechanism for handling the inevitable failures. Consider the model policy from the Ada Initiative: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_anti-harassment_policy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_ant... A good chunk of that is about how the working-to-fix part works. I think that's really valuable to have thought through in advance. I have banned people before (never for this, thank goodness) and in the moment it's incredibly hard to avoid over- or under-reacting if you have to think everything through from first principles.
- jen_h 14y ago
  Yeah, I get that--in crisis mode, a playbook is almost required to make sure you make no missteps as someone in charge. This is pivotal in, say, security incident response, or a corporate setting where there are all kinds of legal issues, but at a conference, which is mostly among friends, I don't know. Maybe if you can appropriately genericize the policy, but most of the policies I've seen have almost unilaterally been specifically tailored to protect women (which is great, for me--but maybe not for others who are being singled out). Or they'll talk about "feeling safe." But, you know, when that guy walked up to me when I was talking to my (male) colleagues and specifically singled me out to ask that I allow him to photograph my "tits" as part of a conference "scavenger hunt," I told him off. Then he came back, and I told him off again. I never felt "unsafe," just angry and humiliated. If you're looking at "reporting someone if you feel fear," then it's likely that poor guy had a high possibility of being the one reporting it had he come back a third time. tl;dr: Most of these policies make women and minorities out to be victims vs. ensuring that people just treat each other with common decency and respect. Not a fan of singling any of us out and I don't think it's productive.