5 ms·

I fail to see how she was "abused" at Pycon.

dalke 14y ago
Do you think abuse is limited to physical abuse? Verbal abuse is still a type of abuse. Though as Wikipedia points out, "[d]espite being the most common form of abuse, verbal abuse is generally not taken as seriously as other types, because there is no visible proof..." I believe the logic is pretty straight-forward. Sexist opinions in the tech industry (and/or culture in general) have lead to a hostile workplace for a woman whose job includes going to many tech conferences and who often hears sexist jokes and other (unstated) sexist statements. These are a form of verbal sexual harassment, which is a type of verbal abuse. To continue from the same Wikipedia citation for "Verbal abuse", "In reality, however, verbal abuse can be more detrimental to a person's health than physical abuse."
- nbouscal 14y ago
  The jokes were not sexist. I've had to type that sentence so many times the keys are starting to wear in. The jokes were not sexist. They were not about women, directed towards women, or discriminatory towards women. They didn't have anything to do with women at all. Calling a dongle joke sexist is extremely detrimental because it distracts from real instances of sexism that do occur within this community. We need to talk about the real issues, and this incident is not one of them.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Jokes do not need to be directed towards women in order to be sexist. Sexist jokes directed towards men can also be sexist and contribute towards a hostile workplace. Nor do the jokes need to be directed towards the person or even the gender of the person making the complaint. That's well established by the courts. Quoting from the EEOC: > Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following: * The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. * The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. * The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. * Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. * The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome. You may say that going after this situation is "extremely detrimental" to the overall cause, but you've switched different topic. escaped_hn asked where the abuse claim came from, not if the abuse claim was justifiable. Let's see how this an organization's Harassment policy might handle this. I quote now from http://www.maine.gov/ag/about/harrassment_policy.html http://www.maine.gov/ag/about/harrassment_policy.html : > Further examples of sexual harassment include: behavior that is verbal and sexual in nature - such as comments about a person's looks, personal inquiries, sexual jokes, use of derogatory sexual stereotypes, uttering sexually suggestive sounds, writing sexual notes, use of State computer equipment to send, receive and/or download material of a sexual nature; non-verbal sexual behavior- such as looking someone up and down, staring or leering at someone's body, deliberate blocking of a person's path, displaying sexual visuals, making sexual gestures; or physical - such as pinching, grabbing, sexual assault or any physical contact of a sexual nature. > As a matter of State policy, any behavior of a sexual nature in the workplace is considered unprofessional regardless of whether it constitutes illegal sexual harassment. ... As part of their supervisory responsibilities, supervisors are required to actively prevent or stop inappropriate, unprofessional conduct in the workplace regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of illegal harassment. If they become aware of any such conduct occurring through personal observation or information from another party, they must consult with the Office's EEO Coordinator and take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including discipline, to end the conduct. Corrective action is required regardless of whether a complaint is made or the conduct appears to be unwelcome. Even if the person providing information requests that no action be taken, the supervisor must contact the EEO Coordinator. Managers and supervisors who fail to fulfill their obligations under this policy will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. This unambiguously says that a supervisor at the Maine AG's office must report any joke of a sexual nature, even if there's no complaint, no indication of if it's unwelcome, no indication that it's discriminatory, no thought that it's sexist, and even if there's a request that no action be taken. So even if you don't think this is a sexist joke, the undeniable fact that it is a joke of a sexual nature means that it is and unprofessional and reportable behavior for some workplaces.
    - nbouscal 14y ago
      Consistently throughout this thread you go off into a legal discussion when that's not what anyone is trying to talk about. We're talking about sexism. The question is whether or not the joke was sexist. The answer is that it was not. Jokes of sexual nature are inappropriate and unprofessional. That is obvious, and everyone agrees. They are not, however, inherently sexist.
      - dalke 14y ago
        You're absolutely right that I'm talking about the law, and that I'm not talking about if the joke is sexist or not. That's what this discussion should be about, shouldn't it? The law defines what discrimination means, with many cases brought to the courts to flesh out the details, including a Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is part of Title VII restrictions on sexual discrimination in the workforce. It's much easier to reference these laws and these legal cases, with reasoned judgments which are directly relevant to the topic, then to suppose that my personal beliefs are the way of the world. As such, my comments are not about the topic of whether the joke was sexist. My comments are about the topic of if jokes like these contribute to a hostile workplace. The Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc says > This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. We need not answer today all the potential questions it raises, nor specifically address the EEOC's new regulations on this subject, see 58 Fed. Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1 1609.2); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11 (1993). But we can say that whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. Notice how there's nothing in there about being sexist? It's all about discriminatory conduct. So even if every reasonable person agrees that there is no sexism in the joke, it could still be part of a hostile workplace. That's why I'm focused only on the latter. Now, as Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. points out, Title VII is not a civility code: > Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at " discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex." We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations. > We have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering "all the circumstances." ... The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relation ships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed. Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive. Part of the "constellation" might include the severity or pervasiveness of the offensive acts acts. Part of it might include if there was an attempt to effect change. Part of it might be the reaction of people when there is an attempt to change things. But none of it says that we can only look to see if a joke is sexist in order to help identify if it might be part of a hostile workplace. So I don't care what people are talking about, if they are only concerned about if the joke is sexist or not. I care about if this was contributory towards a hostile workplace environment, and I care about what mechanisms we as the tech industry (and since I am a PSF member, what we as PyCon organizers) should have in place in order to reduce hostility in the workplace -- and yes, a conference is part of many people's workplace. If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues.

dalke 14y ago

Do you think abuse is limited to physical abuse? Verbal abuse is still a type of abuse. Though as Wikipedia points out, "[d]espite being the most common form of abuse, verbal abuse is generally not taken as seriously as other types, because there is no visible proof..." I believe the logic is pretty straight-forward. Sexist opinions in the tech industry (and/or culture in general) have lead to a hostile workplace for a woman whose job includes going to many tech conferences and who often hears sexist jokes and other (unstated) sexist statements. These are a form of verbal sexual harassment, which is a type of verbal abuse. To continue from the same Wikipedia citation for "Verbal abuse", "In reality, however, verbal abuse can be more detrimental to a person's health than physical abuse."

nbouscal 14y ago
The jokes were not sexist. I've had to type that sentence so many times the keys are starting to wear in. The jokes were not sexist. They were not about women, directed towards women, or discriminatory towards women. They didn't have anything to do with women at all. Calling a dongle joke sexist is extremely detrimental because it distracts from real instances of sexism that do occur within this community. We need to talk about the real issues, and this incident is not one of them.
- dalke 14y ago
  Jokes do not need to be directed towards women in order to be sexist. Sexist jokes directed towards men can also be sexist and contribute towards a hostile workplace. Nor do the jokes need to be directed towards the person or even the gender of the person making the complaint. That's well established by the courts. Quoting from the EEOC: > Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following: * The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. * The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. * The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. * Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. * The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome. You may say that going after this situation is "extremely detrimental" to the overall cause, but you've switched different topic. escaped_hn asked where the abuse claim came from, not if the abuse claim was justifiable. Let's see how this an organization's Harassment policy might handle this. I quote now from http://www.maine.gov/ag/about/harrassment_policy.html http://www.maine.gov/ag/about/harrassment_policy.html : > Further examples of sexual harassment include: behavior that is verbal and sexual in nature - such as comments about a person's looks, personal inquiries, sexual jokes, use of derogatory sexual stereotypes, uttering sexually suggestive sounds, writing sexual notes, use of State computer equipment to send, receive and/or download material of a sexual nature; non-verbal sexual behavior- such as looking someone up and down, staring or leering at someone's body, deliberate blocking of a person's path, displaying sexual visuals, making sexual gestures; or physical - such as pinching, grabbing, sexual assault or any physical contact of a sexual nature. > As a matter of State policy, any behavior of a sexual nature in the workplace is considered unprofessional regardless of whether it constitutes illegal sexual harassment. ... As part of their supervisory responsibilities, supervisors are required to actively prevent or stop inappropriate, unprofessional conduct in the workplace regardless of whether the conduct rises to the level of illegal harassment. If they become aware of any such conduct occurring through personal observation or information from another party, they must consult with the Office's EEO Coordinator and take immediate and appropriate corrective action, including discipline, to end the conduct. Corrective action is required regardless of whether a complaint is made or the conduct appears to be unwelcome. Even if the person providing information requests that no action be taken, the supervisor must contact the EEO Coordinator. Managers and supervisors who fail to fulfill their obligations under this policy will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. This unambiguously says that a supervisor at the Maine AG's office must report any joke of a sexual nature, even if there's no complaint, no indication of if it's unwelcome, no indication that it's discriminatory, no thought that it's sexist, and even if there's a request that no action be taken. So even if you don't think this is a sexist joke, the undeniable fact that it is a joke of a sexual nature means that it is and unprofessional and reportable behavior for some workplaces.
  - nbouscal 14y ago
    Consistently throughout this thread you go off into a legal discussion when that's not what anyone is trying to talk about. We're talking about sexism. The question is whether or not the joke was sexist. The answer is that it was not. Jokes of sexual nature are inappropriate and unprofessional. That is obvious, and everyone agrees. They are not, however, inherently sexist.
    - dalke 14y ago
      You're absolutely right that I'm talking about the law, and that I'm not talking about if the joke is sexist or not. That's what this discussion should be about, shouldn't it? The law defines what discrimination means, with many cases brought to the courts to flesh out the details, including a Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is part of Title VII restrictions on sexual discrimination in the workforce. It's much easier to reference these laws and these legal cases, with reasoned judgments which are directly relevant to the topic, then to suppose that my personal beliefs are the way of the world. As such, my comments are not about the topic of whether the joke was sexist. My comments are about the topic of if jokes like these contribute to a hostile workplace. The Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc says > This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. We need not answer today all the potential questions it raises, nor specifically address the EEOC's new regulations on this subject, see 58 Fed. Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1 1609.2); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11 (1993). But we can say that whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. Notice how there's nothing in there about being sexist? It's all about discriminatory conduct. So even if every reasonable person agrees that there is no sexism in the joke, it could still be part of a hostile workplace. That's why I'm focused only on the latter. Now, as Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. points out, Title VII is not a civility code: > Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at " discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex." We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations. > We have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering "all the circumstances." ... The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relation ships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed. Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive. Part of the "constellation" might include the severity or pervasiveness of the offensive acts acts. Part of it might include if there was an attempt to effect change. Part of it might be the reaction of people when there is an attempt to change things. But none of it says that we can only look to see if a joke is sexist in order to help identify if it might be part of a hostile workplace. So I don't care what people are talking about, if they are only concerned about if the joke is sexist or not. I care about if this was contributory towards a hostile workplace environment, and I care about what mechanisms we as the tech industry (and since I am a PSF member, what we as PyCon organizers) should have in place in order to reduce hostility in the workplace -- and yes, a conference is part of many people's workplace. If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues.