3 ms·

Experiences vary. Responses to certain things depend on what's happened to you in the past. Some people's sexual harassment is someone else's harmless flirting,

by mjg59 13y ago

Experiences vary. Responses to certain things depend on what's happened to you in the past. Some people's sexual harassment is someone else's harmless flirting, an entirely innocent joke may be an unintended racial slur. The same incident viewed by different people may be interpreted entirely differently. So yeah, it's great that there are women who feel safe in open source communities. It's wonderful that they've felt welcomed and unharassed. It would be entirely inappropriate to say that their experience is false or to suggest that they should object to behaviour that they feel is perfectly acceptable. But it's also entirely inappropriate to suggest that the experience of women who don't feel safe is somehow false or unwarranted. Changing the culture of our communities isn't a zero sum game. Making them more accessible shouldn't come at the cost of alienating women who are happy with how things are, but nor should those who are happy with how things are resist efforts to improve the happiness of others.

mnicole 13y ago
Yeah, I had a bit of a struggle with: > Yes, we encountered dicks in our lives. Yes, we have been assaulted in our lives, maybe in broad daylight, in public. Yes, we've been hit on tastelessly and repeatedly and we have been disgusted and annoyed and sometimes we have been near panic. Some of us have encountered violence. We've gotten grabbed our asses, gotten felt up our boobs, have been stared at, wolf whistles at us and had some drunken moron hang in front of us. Yes, some of us have hit the proverbial glass ceiling in our careers. > This is (a bad) part of our lives and yes, we judge social gathering and human encounters by how comfortable we are and how safe we feel and by their level of open or veiled dickishness. > But this is only ONE aspect of being a woman and we do not like to let this aspect dominate how we live and behave within the tech communities of our choice. The first paragraph acknowledges sexual and physical assaults/harassment, the second acknowledges that these shape our worldview, but the third implies that the victim is able to overcome the problem and let it slide off of their back. I think this is a bit if a dangerous message to send because it negates the unfortunate reality that it is always in the back of your mind and it insinuates that these encounters are one-offs, as opposed to childhood trauma or ongoing domestic issues (ignoring that a lot of the harassment faced these days is online and done by people who wouldn't at all think to do it in real-life). Also I'm not sure if "assault" is coming from someone's CoC, but: > We also like to keep the vocabulary appropriate: An "assault" is an act of violence, an agressive act to overpower a person. We do not feel being hit on tastelessly being an assault. A blunt stare into our cleavage is not an assault. Someone accidently touching us is not an assault. The typical french pseudo-kiss-hug is a cultural thing and not an assault. A hug might be a completely friendly act and not an assault - even if it might not be welcome. .. comes off more as "Hey guys, don't worry! We're not tight-asses about this stuff!" vs. "Assault is the wrong word to use, but these are still forms of harassment depending on the person and the action, so please know when and what is appropriate for whom."
- aeturnum 13y ago
  >third implies that the victim is able to overcome the problem and let it slide off of their back. I don't think she's saying that. These events are serious, but they're just one event among a lifetime of events. If you needed to use a wheelchair to move around, you would want people to respect your mobility limits, but you would emphatically want to be more than just your wheelchair. This does not imply an expectation to let that you should let the injury "slide off your back," but it does mean that it's your life and we should all let you decide how to deal with it. Don't push your understanding of how I should feel on me. The author is saying, yes, these things happen and they're bad. But let's not lose sight of what we are here for. We are all more than our injuries, and even (especially!) when those injuries continue to haunt us we should strive to do more than focus on them.
sgentle 13y ago
Absolutely. I like to think of it terms of a guiding principle of non-universality. A lot of errors seem to spring from incorrectly assuming that everyone's definition of acceptable conduct is (or even should be) the same, or assuming that one person's (or group's) experience can be applied uniformly to a much larger group. I recently had a great conversation with a friend who asked me if I could imagine being uncomfortable because of a woman's advances. I said yes, absolutely. She asked, if that woman were to ignore your rebuffs, could you imagine being in a situation where there'd be nothing you could do to stop it. And I couldn't. I mean, I could just leave the room. Or ask a figure with authority in the situation to step in. Or, if nobody else was around, just walk away. But that's because I wouldn't - couldn't - feel physically threatened by it. And so my understanding of the situation is necessarily non-universal. I have to take it on faith that women (hell, people in general) can feel threatened by things I don't understand as threatening because, definitionally, I can't experience things outside of my experience. Sometimes conversations on gender and technology can get quite heated, and I feel unfairly caught up in a lot of quite powerful emotional crossfire when, like many others, I'm just trying to make sense of it and do what seems right as best I can. So far I've gotten decent mileage out of non-universality, proportionality, merit and consent as my axioms for this, but it's an evolving process. I read this manifesto as largely being against a perceived universality of female opinion, and in that sense I agree with it. I know women who find wearing a hijab empowering, and others who consider it the worst kind of oppression. I know of women who don't care about, or even like, booth babes. I'm glad to hear dissenting voices to remind us that nobody, not Ada Lovelace herself, can give us the One Right Answer To Women In Computing that we've all been hoping for. But I think that part of embracing non-universality is knowing its limitations. "We prefer taste, professionalism and behavior being created by living a culture of taste, fun, substance and standards" - I absolutely agree. But what standards? What taste? My experience of professional behaviour will determine my answers. If I've worked in a machine shop all my life, maybe "show us yer tits" seems perfectly professional. I agree that demonising men (even the men who do the wrong thing) isn't the right answer, but there does need to be some answer if there's any hope of improving the situation. What we need is a way of collectively agreeing on what is okay. Like any protocol, it might have variations and exceptions, but some kind of standard that attendees can consent to: "we can't tell you what good taste is, but we can all agree to at least this much". As a newspaper for beleaguered women to whap over the nose of all those naughty men, I would be vehemently against any anti-harassment policy. In those terms it would seem like just entrenched victimhood. But as a system for establishing an acceptable, consensual standard of behaviour I consider these policies a great step forward for the technology industry. It might seem like being very open and high-minded to say "we don't need rules", but for the men and women who are most at risk that's just saying "there are rules but we won't tell you what they are or how they work". An undocumented protocol is still a protocol, one whose understanding often requires tragic mistakes.

by mjg59 13y ago

mnicole 13y ago

Yeah, I had a bit of a struggle with: > Yes, we encountered dicks in our lives. Yes, we have been assaulted in our lives, maybe in broad daylight, in public. Yes, we've been hit on tastelessly and repeatedly and we have been disgusted and annoyed and sometimes we have been near panic. Some of us have encountered violence. We've gotten grabbed our asses, gotten felt up our boobs, have been stared at, wolf whistles at us and had some drunken moron hang in front of us. Yes, some of us have hit the proverbial glass ceiling in our careers. > This is (a bad) part of our lives and yes, we judge social gathering and human encounters by how comfortable we are and how safe we feel and by their level of open or veiled dickishness. > But this is only ONE aspect of being a woman and we do not like to let this aspect dominate how we live and behave within the tech communities of our choice. The first paragraph acknowledges sexual and physical assaults/harassment, the second acknowledges that these shape our worldview, but the third implies that the victim is able to overcome the problem and let it slide off of their back. I think this is a bit if a dangerous message to send because it negates the unfortunate reality that it is always in the back of your mind and it insinuates that these encounters are one-offs, as opposed to childhood trauma or ongoing domestic issues (ignoring that a lot of the harassment faced these days is online and done by people who wouldn't at all think to do it in real-life). Also I'm not sure if "assault" is coming from someone's CoC, but: > We also like to keep the vocabulary appropriate: An "assault" is an act of violence, an agressive act to overpower a person. We do not feel being hit on tastelessly being an assault. A blunt stare into our cleavage is not an assault. Someone accidently touching us is not an assault. The typical french pseudo-kiss-hug is a cultural thing and not an assault. A hug might be a completely friendly act and not an assault - even if it might not be welcome. .. comes off more as "Hey guys, don't worry! We're not tight-asses about this stuff!" vs. "Assault is the wrong word to use, but these are still forms of harassment depending on the person and the action, so please know when and what is appropriate for whom."

aeturnum 13y ago
>third implies that the victim is able to overcome the problem and let it slide off of their back. I don't think she's saying that. These events are serious, but they're just one event among a lifetime of events. If you needed to use a wheelchair to move around, you would want people to respect your mobility limits, but you would emphatically want to be more than just your wheelchair. This does not imply an expectation to let that you should let the injury "slide off your back," but it does mean that it's your life and we should all let you decide how to deal with it. Don't push your understanding of how I should feel on me. The author is saying, yes, these things happen and they're bad. But let's not lose sight of what we are here for. We are all more than our injuries, and even (especially!) when those injuries continue to haunt us we should strive to do more than focus on them.

sgentle 13y ago

Absolutely. I like to think of it terms of a guiding principle of non-universality. A lot of errors seem to spring from incorrectly assuming that everyone's definition of acceptable conduct is (or even should be) the same, or assuming that one person's (or group's) experience can be applied uniformly to a much larger group. I recently had a great conversation with a friend who asked me if I could imagine being uncomfortable because of a woman's advances. I said yes, absolutely. She asked, if that woman were to ignore your rebuffs, could you imagine being in a situation where there'd be nothing you could do to stop it. And I couldn't. I mean, I could just leave the room. Or ask a figure with authority in the situation to step in. Or, if nobody else was around, just walk away. But that's because I wouldn't - couldn't - feel physically threatened by it. And so my understanding of the situation is necessarily non-universal. I have to take it on faith that women (hell, people in general) can feel threatened by things I don't understand as threatening because, definitionally, I can't experience things outside of my experience. Sometimes conversations on gender and technology can get quite heated, and I feel unfairly caught up in a lot of quite powerful emotional crossfire when, like many others, I'm just trying to make sense of it and do what seems right as best I can. So far I've gotten decent mileage out of non-universality, proportionality, merit and consent as my axioms for this, but it's an evolving process. I read this manifesto as largely being against a perceived universality of female opinion, and in that sense I agree with it. I know women who find wearing a hijab empowering, and others who consider it the worst kind of oppression. I know of women who don't care about, or even like, booth babes. I'm glad to hear dissenting voices to remind us that nobody, not Ada Lovelace herself, can give us the One Right Answer To Women In Computing that we've all been hoping for. But I think that part of embracing non-universality is knowing its limitations. "We prefer taste, professionalism and behavior being created by living a culture of taste, fun, substance and standards" - I absolutely agree. But what standards? What taste? My experience of professional behaviour will determine my answers. If I've worked in a machine shop all my life, maybe "show us yer tits" seems perfectly professional. I agree that demonising men (even the men who do the wrong thing) isn't the right answer, but there does need to be some answer if there's any hope of improving the situation. What we need is a way of collectively agreeing on what is okay. Like any protocol, it might have variations and exceptions, but some kind of standard that attendees can consent to: "we can't tell you what good taste is, but we can all agree to at least this much". As a newspaper for beleaguered women to whap over the nose of all those naughty men, I would be vehemently against any anti-harassment policy. In those terms it would seem like just entrenched victimhood. But as a system for establishing an acceptable, consensual standard of behaviour I consider these policies a great step forward for the technology industry. It might seem like being very open and high-minded to say "we don't need rules", but for the men and women who are most at risk that's just saying "there are rules but we won't tell you what they are or how they work". An undocumented protocol is still a protocol, one whose understanding often requires tragic mistakes.