11 ms·

I think it's not as simple as you make out. There's little to say about the abuse. Once you've said it was terrible, you've pretty well said all you can say. A

I think it's not as simple as you make out. There's little to say about the abuse. Once you've said it was terrible, you've pretty well said all you can say. As for the incident itself, however, it's clearly possible to have different opinions, which is why you see a lot more conversation about it. It's actually the more interesting topic of the two.

maxerickson 14y ago
Most of the conversation hasn't been very interesting though. I'd rather see discussion of what people think is appropriate behavior in a public setting like a conference. When is it O.K. to at least make someone else aware that they are making you uncomfortable? Is it a good idea to create situations where bringing in a third party is an acceptable response to a situation? What is a constructive way to handle situations where someone feels aggrieved but few people agree with them? And so on. Instead, we get lots of picking at the details of this incident, or uninteresting analysis of what motivates Adria Richards (most of us are flawed enough that we are not fully aware of our own motivations, never mind those of a stranger). I suppose there is at least some contingent that would point at the legal system and say "There's your guide to behavior, right there." I also suspect that there would be a majority that disagreed with them.
- summerdown2 14y ago
  I think this is an interesting comment, because I find the opposite. I've seen a great deal of debate about what people think is appropriate behaviour at a conference. The debate I've seen includes, amongst other positions: a) It's work, so needs a professional attitude b) It's just a joke, so should be forgiven c) It lowers the tone d) It makes a hostile atmosphere for women e) It was a private conversation f) It was a public space g) It's against the conference policy h) The problem wasn't the policy, but the public outing i) Twitter isn't public j) Is it sexist to use sexual imagery? k) Have the companies responded correctly? ... etc. Lots of debate from what I've seen
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    You're right, there has been quite a lot of discussion along those lines. I do think statements like "It's just a joke" fall under picking at the details of the incident, I'd like to see the debated hoisted up a bit from there. Meaning, do the people who think such a joke isn't a big deal think there is any verbalization that would be inappropriate in that setting? How far would the people who claim the conversation was private extend that context? Stuff like that, where the details are set aside and people look for where the interesting lines are.
    - summerdown2 14y ago
      I think it's pretty clear that there are some things that would be inappropriate. The interesting thing here is that you wouldn't ordinarily expect two people to lose their jobs over a crap joke and a twitter photo. it appears to be a perfect storm, where the deviations from what might be acceptable are minor, but the results are huge. One thing I take away is that if something isn't done* to deal with the tendency of the internet to make something viral, everyone will be walking on eggshells ... whether making a joke or posting something on twitter. * I have no idea what that could be, though.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
There's not a lot to say about the fact that every time a woman speaks up about inappropriate behaviour, she receives an avalanche of insults, death threats and harassment? http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a-tech-conference http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a... That you don't think there's much to say is itself highly indicative of how completely tone-deaf the tech community is about gender issues.
- summerdown2 14y ago
  I didn't say there was not a lot to say about it. I said there was not a lot to say beyond 'It's wrong' The more debatable issue is getting more traffic, which is only understandable. You seem to feel that the amount of discussion relates to how acceptable something is. I feel it relates to how debatable it is.
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    But the "discussion" about whether Richards did the right thing hasn't been a debate - it's been a general piling-on with a generous helping of condescension and chauvinism. There has been only a smattering of disagreement and it has been summarily dismissed with a combination of the most perfunctory hand-waving and sheer shouting down. The tech community immediately and decisively latched onto a convenient portrait of Richards as an underhanded, incompetent, cowardly, race-baiting, gender-baiting fraud with a manipulative agenda to aggrandize herself at the expense of everyone around her. No amount of counter-evidence could make a dent in this depiction, a depiction that is immediately slapped onto every woman who dares to speak up about gender issues in the tech industry [1]. Everyone read and referred to the Amanda Blum post [2], but totally ignored a detailed review [3] of the instances Blum cited that cast them in a far more detailed and less sinister light. No matter how you try to parse it, it's unambiguously clear that our community whipped itself into an apoplectic firestorm of outrage when a woman complained about behaviour in a conference that violated the conference's code of conduct, but at best shrugged and at worst said she deserved it when that very firestorm of outrage turned into an outpouring of the most vile, vitriolic and disgusting abuse, insults, threats and mockery against her. That says something most disturbing about our community, and the collective unwillingness even to acknowledge it, let alone come to terms with it, should be all the evidence we need that our blind spot on gender issues is as pervasive as ever. References [1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a-tech-conference http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a... [2] http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ [3] http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-surface-that-amanda-blum-article-on-adria-richards-is-not-what-it-seems/ http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-th...

maxerickson 14y ago

Most of the conversation hasn't been very interesting though. I'd rather see discussion of what people think is appropriate behavior in a public setting like a conference. When is it O.K. to at least make someone else aware that they are making you uncomfortable? Is it a good idea to create situations where bringing in a third party is an acceptable response to a situation? What is a constructive way to handle situations where someone feels aggrieved but few people agree with them? And so on. Instead, we get lots of picking at the details of this incident, or uninteresting analysis of what motivates Adria Richards (most of us are flawed enough that we are not fully aware of our own motivations, never mind those of a stranger). I suppose there is at least some contingent that would point at the legal system and say "There's your guide to behavior, right there." I also suspect that there would be a majority that disagreed with them.

summerdown2 14y ago
I think this is an interesting comment, because I find the opposite. I've seen a great deal of debate about what people think is appropriate behaviour at a conference. The debate I've seen includes, amongst other positions: a) It's work, so needs a professional attitude b) It's just a joke, so should be forgiven c) It lowers the tone d) It makes a hostile atmosphere for women e) It was a private conversation f) It was a public space g) It's against the conference policy h) The problem wasn't the policy, but the public outing i) Twitter isn't public j) Is it sexist to use sexual imagery? k) Have the companies responded correctly? ... etc. Lots of debate from what I've seen
- maxerickson 14y ago
  You're right, there has been quite a lot of discussion along those lines. I do think statements like "It's just a joke" fall under picking at the details of the incident, I'd like to see the debated hoisted up a bit from there. Meaning, do the people who think such a joke isn't a big deal think there is any verbalization that would be inappropriate in that setting? How far would the people who claim the conversation was private extend that context? Stuff like that, where the details are set aside and people look for where the interesting lines are.
  - summerdown2 14y ago
    I think it's pretty clear that there are some things that would be inappropriate. The interesting thing here is that you wouldn't ordinarily expect two people to lose their jobs over a crap joke and a twitter photo. it appears to be a perfect storm, where the deviations from what might be acceptable are minor, but the results are huge. One thing I take away is that if something isn't done* to deal with the tendency of the internet to make something viral, everyone will be walking on eggshells ... whether making a joke or posting something on twitter. * I have no idea what that could be, though.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

There's not a lot to say about the fact that every time a woman speaks up about inappropriate behaviour, she receives an avalanche of insults, death threats and harassment? http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a-tech-conference http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a... That you don't think there's much to say is itself highly indicative of how completely tone-deaf the tech community is about gender issues.

summerdown2 14y ago
I didn't say there was not a lot to say about it. I said there was not a lot to say beyond 'It's wrong' The more debatable issue is getting more traffic, which is only understandable. You seem to feel that the amount of discussion relates to how acceptable something is. I feel it relates to how debatable it is.
- RyanMcGreal 14y ago
  But the "discussion" about whether Richards did the right thing hasn't been a debate - it's been a general piling-on with a generous helping of condescension and chauvinism. There has been only a smattering of disagreement and it has been summarily dismissed with a combination of the most perfunctory hand-waving and sheer shouting down. The tech community immediately and decisively latched onto a convenient portrait of Richards as an underhanded, incompetent, cowardly, race-baiting, gender-baiting fraud with a manipulative agenda to aggrandize herself at the expense of everyone around her. No amount of counter-evidence could make a dent in this depiction, a depiction that is immediately slapped onto every woman who dares to speak up about gender issues in the tech industry [1]. Everyone read and referred to the Amanda Blum post [2], but totally ignored a detailed review [3] of the instances Blum cited that cast them in a far more detailed and less sinister light. No matter how you try to parse it, it's unambiguously clear that our community whipped itself into an apoplectic firestorm of outrage when a woman complained about behaviour in a conference that violated the conference's code of conduct, but at best shrugged and at worst said she deserved it when that very firestorm of outrage turned into an outpouring of the most vile, vitriolic and disgusting abuse, insults, threats and mockery against her. That says something most disturbing about our community, and the collective unwillingness even to acknowledge it, let alone come to terms with it, should be all the evidence we need that our blind spot on gender issues is as pervasive as ever. References [1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a-tech-conference http://www.buzzfeed.com/courtneystanton/a-woman-walks-into-a... [2] http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ [3] http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-surface-that-amanda-blum-article-on-adria-richards-is-not-what-it-seems/ http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-th...