Open Source Misogyny(blogs.osuosl.org)
blogs.osuosl.org
Open Source Misogyny
http://blogs.osuosl.org/gchaix/2010/11/07/open-source-misogyny/
12 comments
A community-created code of conduct is different from and can be more effective than standard law because it's coming from the community.
Rather than being an abstract decision taken by 'other people' to make certain actions unwelcome, it's a concrete decision taken by 'our people'.
Social enforcement is probably a more effective deterrent than legal enforcement.
Rather than being an abstract decision taken by 'other people' to make certain actions unwelcome, it's a concrete decision taken by 'our people'.
Social enforcement is probably a more effective deterrent than legal enforcement.
TomfTTB, I think you missed some of my points in the post. Let's see if I can clarify:
1) Codes of conduct - I'm talking about community covenants that come from the community and that have real teeth enforced by the community. This is not about whether an action is illegal and enforceable in court, it's about a community setting standards of behavior for its members and taking real action against people who violate them. I can think of numerous unethical or abusive actions that, while not illegal, could (and should) be included in a community code of conduct as worthy of censure.
2) Training - I'm not talking about some quick and shallow two hour seminar with a cheezy twenty minute "this is sexual harassment" video. Those are nearly worthless. I'm talking about the much longer intensive trainings offered for and by domestic violence/sexual assault service agencies. Trainings where we learn to see the culture of oppression and violence through the eyes of the people who have survived it. We're talking about changing a culture and its underlying frame of reference, not simply pointing at something and saying, "don't do that, it's bad."
3) Speaking out - my point was that we need to be better at speaking out for exactly the reason you described. We need to do more than just shout incoherently into the void. We need to be more deliberate regarding how we speak out. A quiet, one-on-one "dude, you can't say crap like that" to a peer or an "I'm sorry, but our community does not allow its members to behave in that manner. Please leave now," is more valuable and effective than a thousand blog comments. It's not a question of whether we speak out, but how we speak out.
Lastly, I'm not trying to make this into a "micro issue". I'm pointing out that the tech community is particularly hostile to women. Compared with the other communities I've worked with (primarily in the non-profit and education sectors), the tech community is shockingly bad.
1) Codes of conduct - I'm talking about community covenants that come from the community and that have real teeth enforced by the community. This is not about whether an action is illegal and enforceable in court, it's about a community setting standards of behavior for its members and taking real action against people who violate them. I can think of numerous unethical or abusive actions that, while not illegal, could (and should) be included in a community code of conduct as worthy of censure.
2) Training - I'm not talking about some quick and shallow two hour seminar with a cheezy twenty minute "this is sexual harassment" video. Those are nearly worthless. I'm talking about the much longer intensive trainings offered for and by domestic violence/sexual assault service agencies. Trainings where we learn to see the culture of oppression and violence through the eyes of the people who have survived it. We're talking about changing a culture and its underlying frame of reference, not simply pointing at something and saying, "don't do that, it's bad."
3) Speaking out - my point was that we need to be better at speaking out for exactly the reason you described. We need to do more than just shout incoherently into the void. We need to be more deliberate regarding how we speak out. A quiet, one-on-one "dude, you can't say crap like that" to a peer or an "I'm sorry, but our community does not allow its members to behave in that manner. Please leave now," is more valuable and effective than a thousand blog comments. It's not a question of whether we speak out, but how we speak out.
Lastly, I'm not trying to make this into a "micro issue". I'm pointing out that the tech community is particularly hostile to women. Compared with the other communities I've worked with (primarily in the non-profit and education sectors), the tech community is shockingly bad.
Excellent points. It's disappointing to see the TomfTTB's comment ranked so much higher than this response.
The problem here isn't misogyny. The problem is the impact that the unreality of the Internet has on people's psychology, and what happens when Internet psychology crashes into cold, hard reality.
There are two events being "discussed" here: the alleged incident of sexual battery at ApacheCon, and the Internet's reaction to the report of the incident. Both are, to my eyes, shot through with Internet-thinking.
I can give you a pie-eyed exegesis of how the rapid-fire 140-character "we're all Interfriends" no-harm no-foul if - it's - easy - to - and - nobody - catches - fire - it - must - be - ok mentality might have led to some idiot allegedly assaulting a peer at a conference, but you can probably see those arguments coming a mile away.
But this article isn't mostly about the actual incident; it's motivated more by how the Internet responded to the incident. And the Internet handled this incident the same way the Internet handles everything else: the same way it handles an iPhone bug. So you've got people talking about "innocent until proven guilty full stop" (note: you are not in the real world trustworthy until proven untrustworthy), and other people saying "she wasn't actually injured so what's the big deal" (note: of the places I would not want to be locked up for sexual battery, Georgia tops the list).
But they're not really talking about gender politics. They're nerds, trying to fit a complicated event into their mental models, which models demand consistency and transparency and rigidity. It's just difficult for the nerdal cortex to process the idea that rather than laying out an irrefutable case in front of a court of law, the victim of sexual aggression can use other tools available to them to retaliate, deter future offenders, and reestablish a zone of control over themselves.
You saw exactly the same mentality over the Reiser trial. "How can you be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence?!" (answer: very easily). "Juries just don't understand Aspergers!" "His best friend is a serial killer!" The nerdal cortex tries to absorb these stimuli and turn it into a graph structure that can be traversed for answers, but no matter what the model is, at the end of the day, Reiser led the police to the body and confessed to the crime. Reality is inescapable, even when the graph isn't fully connected.
I wouldn't read this most recent story as an example of how geeks discriminate against women (though: they do), but I would look at it as another cautionary tale about how reliable the conventional wisdom of geekery is.
There are two events being "discussed" here: the alleged incident of sexual battery at ApacheCon, and the Internet's reaction to the report of the incident. Both are, to my eyes, shot through with Internet-thinking.
I can give you a pie-eyed exegesis of how the rapid-fire 140-character "we're all Interfriends" no-harm no-foul if - it's - easy - to - and - nobody - catches - fire - it - must - be - ok mentality might have led to some idiot allegedly assaulting a peer at a conference, but you can probably see those arguments coming a mile away.
But this article isn't mostly about the actual incident; it's motivated more by how the Internet responded to the incident. And the Internet handled this incident the same way the Internet handles everything else: the same way it handles an iPhone bug. So you've got people talking about "innocent until proven guilty full stop" (note: you are not in the real world trustworthy until proven untrustworthy), and other people saying "she wasn't actually injured so what's the big deal" (note: of the places I would not want to be locked up for sexual battery, Georgia tops the list).
But they're not really talking about gender politics. They're nerds, trying to fit a complicated event into their mental models, which models demand consistency and transparency and rigidity. It's just difficult for the nerdal cortex to process the idea that rather than laying out an irrefutable case in front of a court of law, the victim of sexual aggression can use other tools available to them to retaliate, deter future offenders, and reestablish a zone of control over themselves.
You saw exactly the same mentality over the Reiser trial. "How can you be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence?!" (answer: very easily). "Juries just don't understand Aspergers!" "His best friend is a serial killer!" The nerdal cortex tries to absorb these stimuli and turn it into a graph structure that can be traversed for answers, but no matter what the model is, at the end of the day, Reiser led the police to the body and confessed to the crime. Reality is inescapable, even when the graph isn't fully connected.
I wouldn't read this most recent story as an example of how geeks discriminate against women (though: they do), but I would look at it as another cautionary tale about how reliable the conventional wisdom of geekery is.
> The problem is the impact that the unreality of the Internet has on people's psychology, and what happens when Internet psychology crashes into cold, hard reality.
I am not sure you can call it unreality anymore, except maybe for people above a certain age.
> So you've got people talking about "innocent until proven guilty full stop" […], and other people saying "she wasn't actually injured so what's the big deal"
I think you misrepresent the ratios of "some people" (and omitting all the e-hug responses). Unfortunately this played out as I thought. "Innocent until proven guilty" is brought up because of the name and it will continue to be a distraction.
Well, perhaps there shall be a trite apology come Monday.
I am not sure you can call it unreality anymore, except maybe for people above a certain age.
> So you've got people talking about "innocent until proven guilty full stop" […], and other people saying "she wasn't actually injured so what's the big deal"
I think you misrepresent the ratios of "some people" (and omitting all the e-hug responses). Unfortunately this played out as I thought. "Innocent until proven guilty" is brought up because of the name and it will continue to be a distraction.
Well, perhaps there shall be a trite apology come Monday.
> The problem here isn't misogyny.
Really? I'm seeing plenty of misogyny, along with other problems.
Really? I'm seeing plenty of misogyny, along with other problems.
A 1000 times yes.
But, with one proviso:
It is ethical, right, and good to cut off all ties with people who actually do violate social rules and hurt others. It's better for everyone, including the person who did the deed, because they will learn fast that it is unacceptable.
There should, as the original post says, be no exceptions for skill or usefulness.
In my time, I've entirely cut off people who I've learned have hit or abused others in any way. I don't care if it's a man sticking his hand in a woman's pants or a guy hitting his boyfriend or a woman verbally abusing her man, or any parent mistreating their child. (All humans, of every gender, age and background, do evil and hurt each other equally.)
I've taken a lot of heat for this, and lost opportunities for money & fame, but you know what? I can sleep easy. I'm not losing my own sense of what's right by drips and drabs of attrition.
That said, you can't make it top-down. It'll never work. There's no way to dictate that others do this, no community "rules" that will work, unless people are willing to look hard at themselves and ask, "Is this the kind of behavior I want to condone? Do I want to even be in the same room with a person who'd act like that?"
But, with one proviso:
It is ethical, right, and good to cut off all ties with people who actually do violate social rules and hurt others. It's better for everyone, including the person who did the deed, because they will learn fast that it is unacceptable.
There should, as the original post says, be no exceptions for skill or usefulness.
In my time, I've entirely cut off people who I've learned have hit or abused others in any way. I don't care if it's a man sticking his hand in a woman's pants or a guy hitting his boyfriend or a woman verbally abusing her man, or any parent mistreating their child. (All humans, of every gender, age and background, do evil and hurt each other equally.)
I've taken a lot of heat for this, and lost opportunities for money & fame, but you know what? I can sleep easy. I'm not losing my own sense of what's right by drips and drabs of attrition.
That said, you can't make it top-down. It'll never work. There's no way to dictate that others do this, no community "rules" that will work, unless people are willing to look hard at themselves and ask, "Is this the kind of behavior I want to condone? Do I want to even be in the same room with a person who'd act like that?"
"when well-executed these trainings really do work"
There's absolutely no evidence that "sensitivity training" or "anger management" or any number of these programs designed to protect companies from liability have any sort of effect on anyone.
I actually expect that fear of being publicly named on someone's blog will be more effective. Not saying I approve; just that it has more chance of succeeding than any of those programs, well-done or not.
There's absolutely no evidence that "sensitivity training" or "anger management" or any number of these programs designed to protect companies from liability have any sort of effect on anyone.
I actually expect that fear of being publicly named on someone's blog will be more effective. Not saying I approve; just that it has more chance of succeeding than any of those programs, well-done or not.
I have an honest question to ask, since the number of comments hasn't exploded here, I hope some thoughtful people can see it and answer. Please don't attack me for anything I may be implicitly saying; this is honestly something I'm confused about regarding the culture in which this event took place, and from which I am an outsider.
A number of people have taken great pains to emphasize that the behavior of the lady involved was not justification for an unwanted advance and that men should all understand this. Now I understand 100% that if she clearly and explicitly rejected his kiss advance, it was obviously wrong to go further (all of this is theoretical/alleged but ignore that for a moment).
Let's consider just the kissing portion and nothing beyond that.
Now, isn't sitting on people's laps and flirting exactly inviting this kind of advance? I mean isn't that exactly the point of those behaviors? To excite the passion of people it's being done to and who are watching?
It's very strange for people to vehemently deny this. It's like if I was a biologist of another race observing human kind, what would I identify through observation as the beginning steps in the mating ritual? So why is an impression being given that that kind of behavior is "having fun" and has nothing to do with sex, and trying to attract the opposite sex?
Again, let me state- I don't drink, I don't go to parties like this, I've never been to a bar or a club or a girl's hotel room. So please don't assume I know the answer and I'm trying to imply the answer through these questions. I really just don't understand how you can hold this idealistic view of mankind that a member of one sex should enflame the passion of the opposite sex, through activities and clothing with deliberate, intentional sexual overtones and then expect people to overcome their natural, biological response to that kind of show.
Comments, please?
A number of people have taken great pains to emphasize that the behavior of the lady involved was not justification for an unwanted advance and that men should all understand this. Now I understand 100% that if she clearly and explicitly rejected his kiss advance, it was obviously wrong to go further (all of this is theoretical/alleged but ignore that for a moment).
Let's consider just the kissing portion and nothing beyond that.
Now, isn't sitting on people's laps and flirting exactly inviting this kind of advance? I mean isn't that exactly the point of those behaviors? To excite the passion of people it's being done to and who are watching?
It's very strange for people to vehemently deny this. It's like if I was a biologist of another race observing human kind, what would I identify through observation as the beginning steps in the mating ritual? So why is an impression being given that that kind of behavior is "having fun" and has nothing to do with sex, and trying to attract the opposite sex?
Again, let me state- I don't drink, I don't go to parties like this, I've never been to a bar or a club or a girl's hotel room. So please don't assume I know the answer and I'm trying to imply the answer through these questions. I really just don't understand how you can hold this idealistic view of mankind that a member of one sex should enflame the passion of the opposite sex, through activities and clothing with deliberate, intentional sexual overtones and then expect people to overcome their natural, biological response to that kind of show.
Comments, please?
In the absence of power imbalances (doctor/patient, teacher/student, police/suspect etc), I think in general it's acceptable to make the first part of a first move if you have reason to believe that it is welcome - it becomes crystal clear whether it is or not very quickly. But obviously, the instant that rejection occurs, anything other than a sincere apology for misunderstanding the signals is unacceptable. It's a bit embarrassing, but you get over it :)
As for this (theoretical/alleged/etc etc) story - it doesn't sound like the guy even had reason to believe that his first move was welcome. She had flirted with a couple of other guys, and sat on a few laps due to the lack of seating in the hotel room. As someone with a lot of female friends and who has been at a lot of drunken parties, I can say that this sort of thing is common, lots of fun, but NOT an invitation for any random guy within the group to make a move. There's a big difference between general flirty fun across a group and a girl specifically and exclusively flirting with a single guy. It can take a while and a few mistakes to learn to tell the difference. Especially if you have spent more time on your computer than with friends as a child/teen and you haven't yet realised that the way these things happen on TV aren't how they happen in real life (yes, I am speaking from experience ;D ).
Pro tip for my fellow geek guys: Don't hit on the geek girl. Focus on being awesome. If there's a chance, she'll hit on you. If not, you still get to be awesome.
As for this (theoretical/alleged/etc etc) story - it doesn't sound like the guy even had reason to believe that his first move was welcome. She had flirted with a couple of other guys, and sat on a few laps due to the lack of seating in the hotel room. As someone with a lot of female friends and who has been at a lot of drunken parties, I can say that this sort of thing is common, lots of fun, but NOT an invitation for any random guy within the group to make a move. There's a big difference between general flirty fun across a group and a girl specifically and exclusively flirting with a single guy. It can take a while and a few mistakes to learn to tell the difference. Especially if you have spent more time on your computer than with friends as a child/teen and you haven't yet realised that the way these things happen on TV aren't how they happen in real life (yes, I am speaking from experience ;D ).
Pro tip for my fellow geek guys: Don't hit on the geek girl. Focus on being awesome. If there's a chance, she'll hit on you. If not, you still get to be awesome.
[deleted]
> Let's consider just the kissing portion and nothing beyond that.
I did not get that she had a problem with the just kissing part: everyone might get the wrong impression in some situation, it is somewhat understandable (plus movies make spontaneous kisses appear romantic). Heck, maybe he even had a crush on her? Anyway, in a normal encounter, she says "no", embarrassment all around but no real harm done. The problem was that, apparently, he did not take "no" for an answer.
…
There are obviously biological differences between the sexes and it would be a disservice to pretend there are none when trying to establish codes of behaviour. In this particular case it is rather irrelevant, though.
I did not get that she had a problem with the just kissing part: everyone might get the wrong impression in some situation, it is somewhat understandable (plus movies make spontaneous kisses appear romantic). Heck, maybe he even had a crush on her? Anyway, in a normal encounter, she says "no", embarrassment all around but no real harm done. The problem was that, apparently, he did not take "no" for an answer.
…
There are obviously biological differences between the sexes and it would be a disservice to pretend there are none when trying to establish codes of behaviour. In this particular case it is rather irrelevant, though.
People are not animals, acting upon instinct and physical inputs alone. Our laws, societal norms, and mores are all based on the fact that, while we are animals underneath, a critical part of what makes us human is that we don't have to act on every urge that comes to mind.
Is there an opportunity for people to get confused and read mixed signals? Absolutely. Did they in this case? I don't know. From the little I have read, it does not sound to me like it was a case of "she was totally leading me on, then was shocked when I followed."
Regardless, as a man in that situation, I would be extremely careful. It is far to easy to get into trouble with the law in situation that somebody is leading you on, then turns off. Personally, I don't want a felony assault on my record, regardless of whether I'm "right" or not.
Is there an opportunity for people to get confused and read mixed signals? Absolutely. Did they in this case? I don't know. From the little I have read, it does not sound to me like it was a case of "she was totally leading me on, then was shocked when I followed."
Regardless, as a man in that situation, I would be extremely careful. It is far to easy to get into trouble with the law in situation that somebody is leading you on, then turns off. Personally, I don't want a felony assault on my record, regardless of whether I'm "right" or not.
Bullshit?
There are people who enflame my passion to hit them with a clue-by-four, through activities and writing with decidedly incendiary overtones, and yet I'm perfectly fine without hitting them, too.
Is the idea that "non-conensual == not OK" that hard to grasp for males? I don't think so.
There are people who enflame my passion to hit them with a clue-by-four, through activities and writing with decidedly incendiary overtones, and yet I'm perfectly fine without hitting them, too.
Is the idea that "non-conensual == not OK" that hard to grasp for males? I don't think so.
As someone who does go to parties, if some girl were sitting in laps and laying across people, etc., she should not be surprised if a guy makes a move.
Now, the guy should have known she was probably not specifically interested in him, since she was sitting in EVERYONE'S lap (this is analogous to other things a man or woman can do with everybody...)
And, as you mentioned, he had no right or logical reason to make the move down south. If someone did that at a party I was at to one of my female friends, he'd get socked in the face and thrown on the concrete.
---
In short, you're absolutely right, IMO.
Now, the guy should have known she was probably not specifically interested in him, since she was sitting in EVERYONE'S lap (this is analogous to other things a man or woman can do with everybody...)
And, as you mentioned, he had no right or logical reason to make the move down south. If someone did that at a party I was at to one of my female friends, he'd get socked in the face and thrown on the concrete.
---
In short, you're absolutely right, IMO.
I really just don't understand how you can hold this idealistic view of mankind that a member of one sex should enflame the passion of the opposite sex, through activities and clothing with deliberate, intentional sexual overtones and then expect people to overcome their natural, biological response to that kind of show.
All the other men she was hanging out with were able to do it. Speaking for myself only, maybe you are different: raping a woman has never crossed my mind, even when my "passions were enflamed". It's not something I have had to overcome.
All the other men she was hanging out with were able to do it. Speaking for myself only, maybe you are different: raping a woman has never crossed my mind, even when my "passions were enflamed". It's not something I have had to overcome.
This is an interesting blog post, but I have to nitpick at a couple points.
First, the author says "Touching someone without their consent is assault." I hope that's just a not-so-well-thought-out sentence. What was described in the [original blog post http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/418] that started this firestorm went well beyond "touching".
I hope we don't end up in a place where just touching someone (like a hand on someone's shoulder) is actually bad. That said, I really dislike even casual touch from anyone but people I'm very close too, so I can sympathize with people not liking that, but that's not the same as assault. I think there's other ways to handle things that make us uncomfortable without criminalizing them.
Second, I'm not sure if the author is implying in the final paragraph that sexual assault is one of the main reasons the male-female ratio at most tech conferences is so off. He just says it's "due to the behavior of us, the straight white male majority in the open source community".
That problem behavior often falls far short of sexual assault, but the behavior is still problematic ("how to X like a porn star" presentations, anyone?).
I suspect that there are also many other reasons that women don't go to conferences. I would love for someone to do some research on what is keeping women away so that we could make these conferences more attractive to everyone.
First, the author says "Touching someone without their consent is assault." I hope that's just a not-so-well-thought-out sentence. What was described in the [original blog post http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/418] that started this firestorm went well beyond "touching".
I hope we don't end up in a place where just touching someone (like a hand on someone's shoulder) is actually bad. That said, I really dislike even casual touch from anyone but people I'm very close too, so I can sympathize with people not liking that, but that's not the same as assault. I think there's other ways to handle things that make us uncomfortable without criminalizing them.
Second, I'm not sure if the author is implying in the final paragraph that sexual assault is one of the main reasons the male-female ratio at most tech conferences is so off. He just says it's "due to the behavior of us, the straight white male majority in the open source community".
That problem behavior often falls far short of sexual assault, but the behavior is still problematic ("how to X like a porn star" presentations, anyone?).
I suspect that there are also many other reasons that women don't go to conferences. I would love for someone to do some research on what is keeping women away so that we could make these conferences more attractive to everyone.
"I'm not sure if the author is implying in the final paragraph that sexual assault is one of the main reasons the male-female ratio at most tech conferences is so off."
I have a female friend that regularly attends tech conferences, and she said that what surprised her about the blog post is not only that it happened at a tech conference, but that it had happened before. She said that she generally feels pretty safe at tech conferences and that people have always been very respectful of her. That said, she's a sample size of one.
But I'm not sure a sample size of two is enough to conclude it's a pervasive problem at conferences that really needs to be dealt with on a population level.
I have a female friend that regularly attends tech conferences, and she said that what surprised her about the blog post is not only that it happened at a tech conference, but that it had happened before. She said that she generally feels pretty safe at tech conferences and that people have always been very respectful of her. That said, she's a sample size of one.
But I'm not sure a sample size of two is enough to conclude it's a pervasive problem at conferences that really needs to be dealt with on a population level.
Without offering any evidence to support this, I agree that it feels like this should be a rare event, if only because sexually assaulting someone attending a conference with friends is a great way to get your teeth knocked out, and that's a story I haven't heard before.
> First, the author says "Touching someone without their consent is assault." I hope that's just a not-so-well-thought-out sentence.
Me too. Technically, it's battery. Assault is making someone afraid of battery. (Common law definitions. Many states have codified somewhat different terminology. There's also distinctions in what's required between the tort of battery, and the crime.)
> I hope we don't end up in a place where just touching someone (like a hand on someone's shoulder) is actually bad.
It's not actually bad. It's bad if you do it when they don't want you to. When they don't mind, it's fine. When they welcome it, it's good.[1]
Keeping one's hands to one's self is something everybody should have learned in kindergarten.
[1] Note that verbal consent before hand need not be the gold standard. But if they intend to sue or press charges, it's damn good evidence that the touching was not welcome. If they shrink away, it's not welcome. If they lean into it, it is. It's really not that hard.
Me too. Technically, it's battery. Assault is making someone afraid of battery. (Common law definitions. Many states have codified somewhat different terminology. There's also distinctions in what's required between the tort of battery, and the crime.)
> I hope we don't end up in a place where just touching someone (like a hand on someone's shoulder) is actually bad.
It's not actually bad. It's bad if you do it when they don't want you to. When they don't mind, it's fine. When they welcome it, it's good.[1]
Keeping one's hands to one's self is something everybody should have learned in kindergarten.
[1] Note that verbal consent before hand need not be the gold standard. But if they intend to sue or press charges, it's damn good evidence that the touching was not welcome. If they shrink away, it's not welcome. If they lean into it, it is. It's really not that hard.
Sorry. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't phrase that sentence well. I had originally said "no means no" there, but felt that that was equally easy to misunderstand - we shouldn't be waiting until someone physically assaults a community member before we step in.
"I hope that's just a not-so-well-thought-out sentence."
This was at ApacheCon, which was in Georgia. A quick Google says that what she said is probably the truth, albeit maybe a bit oversimplified. The only difference is that touching would be considered battery, not assault:
"Simple battery is defined under Georgia law as intentionally causing harm to another person or touching them in an insulting or provoking nature."
http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.com/georgia-criminal-offen...
Regardless, I think that what the author actually said (touching without consent) isn't a bad way to think about what not to do. If I put my hand on someone's shoulder, do I have reason to believe they won't consent? Not at all.
This was at ApacheCon, which was in Georgia. A quick Google says that what she said is probably the truth, albeit maybe a bit oversimplified. The only difference is that touching would be considered battery, not assault:
"Simple battery is defined under Georgia law as intentionally causing harm to another person or touching them in an insulting or provoking nature."
http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.com/georgia-criminal-offen...
Regardless, I think that what the author actually said (touching without consent) isn't a bad way to think about what not to do. If I put my hand on someone's shoulder, do I have reason to believe they won't consent? Not at all.
I didn't really intend the blog post to start a discussion about whether this specific incident at ApacheCon is legally-defined as "assault" or "battery" or "sexual abuse" or "harassment" or "insert legal term here". That's not really the point. You're right - it was a badly-worded sentence that I should have spent more time wordsmithing it. Mea culpa. My intent was to say, "things like what apparently occurred in Atlanta should never be allowed to happen. We all know it, so let's move on to looking at the greater societal issues incidents like this serve to highlight."
This is an example of a systemic problem within our community that goes beyond a single incident. I invite you to step back a bit and take a look at the attitudes reflected in the day-to-day interaction within our community. Sexist comments and jokes are common. I've been told by more than one woman that she's had to use a gender-neutral or male handle on community IRC channels and fora in order to be taken seriously and/or avoid lewd demands for topless pictures. I've never seen this sort of thing happen elsewhere. The open source community is especially bad when compared to other professional communities. As I saw someone post this weekend, "this isn't the 1960's, we aren't in a Mad Men episode." Things that haven't been acceptable in more than 50 years still occur without comment in our community. I'm trying to shine a light on the problem in an attempt to encourage us to do better.
This is an example of a systemic problem within our community that goes beyond a single incident. I invite you to step back a bit and take a look at the attitudes reflected in the day-to-day interaction within our community. Sexist comments and jokes are common. I've been told by more than one woman that she's had to use a gender-neutral or male handle on community IRC channels and fora in order to be taken seriously and/or avoid lewd demands for topless pictures. I've never seen this sort of thing happen elsewhere. The open source community is especially bad when compared to other professional communities. As I saw someone post this weekend, "this isn't the 1960's, we aren't in a Mad Men episode." Things that haven't been acceptable in more than 50 years still occur without comment in our community. I'm trying to shine a light on the problem in an attempt to encourage us to do better.
I struggled with several parts of the post trying to make the wording clear. You quite correctly found two of them.
I'm talking more about the cultural attitudes that are represented in the comments than I am about the actual event (since I wasn't there and don't want to wade into something I know little to nothing about). The comments, however, are indicative of what many people in our community seem to think is an acceptable attitude. That callous and insensitive attitude is what makes our community hostile to women.
I'm not just talking about conferences - although the alcohol-fueled hothouse atmosphere certainly exaggerates the issue - I'm talking about the entirety of the working environment. The mail lists, fora, IRC channels, etc. where hurtful or inappropriate behavior serves as a strong disincentive for women to join or continue to participate.
I'm talking more about the cultural attitudes that are represented in the comments than I am about the actual event (since I wasn't there and don't want to wade into something I know little to nothing about). The comments, however, are indicative of what many people in our community seem to think is an acceptable attitude. That callous and insensitive attitude is what makes our community hostile to women.
I'm not just talking about conferences - although the alcohol-fueled hothouse atmosphere certainly exaggerates the issue - I'm talking about the entirety of the working environment. The mail lists, fora, IRC channels, etc. where hurtful or inappropriate behavior serves as a strong disincentive for women to join or continue to participate.
The situation was more a product of booze, partying and potentially socially awkward people celebrating an event together as it was about an Open Source issue. This type of stuff happens elsewhere outside of Open Source. To suggest that somehow the Open Source community should rise above it more than say, the accountancy industry is a bit silly at best.
The measures put forward by the author, such as codes of conduct and training sound like the type of thing that might work in a company but are just not going to work at a conference, let alone one with lots of people present, let alone at a party peripheral to a conference.
Two people were very badly affected by the whole episode, the girl and the guy. I'd like to see people let these two sort their issues out with the authorities while we all move on, but something tells me that people are going to try and milk this as long as they can. Maybe I'm just incredibly cynical, but I get the impression that not all that I've read on this matter is as much about the girl or the guy, but more about generating noise to get links. I'm not suggesting that TFA has or hasn't done this, more that I'm an extremely cynical person.
The measures put forward by the author, such as codes of conduct and training sound like the type of thing that might work in a company but are just not going to work at a conference, let alone one with lots of people present, let alone at a party peripheral to a conference.
Two people were very badly affected by the whole episode, the girl and the guy. I'd like to see people let these two sort their issues out with the authorities while we all move on, but something tells me that people are going to try and milk this as long as they can. Maybe I'm just incredibly cynical, but I get the impression that not all that I've read on this matter is as much about the girl or the guy, but more about generating noise to get links. I'm not suggesting that TFA has or hasn't done this, more that I'm an extremely cynical person.
Perhaps it's because our community is more interested in self-improvement? The argument that, "oh, this happens elsewhere, so we shouldn't give it any special attention" is moot because we're supposed to be smarter, more open and more enlightened than the average.
We should all be affected when women can't go to a conference now without feeling that they can't act normally without fear of (at best) having to fend off unwanted advances, or worse.
We should all be affected when women can't go to a conference now without feeling that they can't act normally without fear of (at best) having to fend off unwanted advances, or worse.
The post conflates several issues and I think it is weaker for it. I doubt misogyny is behind the extreme gender ratios in the tech world, and I doubt public self-flagellation of males would encourage more females to participate in tech.
Formulating for terseness, I think the responsibilities fall as follows:
1. The community to ensure that such things do not happen[1]; and
2. The police to ensure that a specific person does not do such things.
Dunno how useful the proposals are. At first glance, they strike me as things that only involve the people who already are not a problem.
[1] Inasmuch we can. In the near-to-mid future, I think it must be expected that some number of predators still exist.
1. The community to ensure that such things do not happen[1]; and
2. The police to ensure that a specific person does not do such things.
Dunno how useful the proposals are. At first glance, they strike me as things that only involve the people who already are not a problem.
[1] Inasmuch we can. In the near-to-mid future, I think it must be expected that some number of predators still exist.
I don't think this has anything to do with the open source community at all. Men will fancy women and be stupid about it in all sorts of groups and environments.
No amount of "sensitivity training" and related measures will change the behavior of psychopaths. The reason big companies have harassment seminars and rules of conduct is not to prevent this from happening, they need this to cover their asses legally when it does happen, and if at all possible to send a message to their employees that they better not be covering this shit up when the time comes.
Converting the open source community (or any community for that matter) into a paranoid kindergarten isn't gonna do anything besides make people miserable. Almost everyone already knows that this kind of behavior is not within the normal range of human interaction, no training necessary. And I suspect those who do not know this to begin with cannot be trained to reliably behave acceptably and normally, no matter how much effort is put into this.
Psychopaths don't need to be educated, they need to stay at home and take their meds.
If all that holds a guy back from acting like a retarded, violent asshole is a bunch of rigid rules and the threat of public shame, his true self will come out eventually no matter how much you invested in sensitivity training. Personality disorders cannot be treated with awareness campaigns. It's not like these people have somehow just missed the memo on how not to mistreat others and are then magically socialized once that information has been provided.
On a side note, I'm sick of (and kind of surprised by) this notion that all men are supposed to be like this by default and just have to restrain themselves all the time so as not to degenerate into drooling monkeys who rape everything in sight. And it's not just women putting this theory out there, I've seen quite a lot of male creeps on LifeJournal threads "confessing" to this kind of personality over the last few days. PSA: if you're like this, it isn't because you're a man. It's because you're sick and should consult professional help.
Converting the open source community (or any community for that matter) into a paranoid kindergarten isn't gonna do anything besides make people miserable. Almost everyone already knows that this kind of behavior is not within the normal range of human interaction, no training necessary. And I suspect those who do not know this to begin with cannot be trained to reliably behave acceptably and normally, no matter how much effort is put into this.
Psychopaths don't need to be educated, they need to stay at home and take their meds.
If all that holds a guy back from acting like a retarded, violent asshole is a bunch of rigid rules and the threat of public shame, his true self will come out eventually no matter how much you invested in sensitivity training. Personality disorders cannot be treated with awareness campaigns. It's not like these people have somehow just missed the memo on how not to mistreat others and are then magically socialized once that information has been provided.
On a side note, I'm sick of (and kind of surprised by) this notion that all men are supposed to be like this by default and just have to restrain themselves all the time so as not to degenerate into drooling monkeys who rape everything in sight. And it's not just women putting this theory out there, I've seen quite a lot of male creeps on LifeJournal threads "confessing" to this kind of personality over the last few days. PSA: if you're like this, it isn't because you're a man. It's because you're sick and should consult professional help.
[deleted]
Anywhere young people, booze, and partying mix, this sort of thing happens, so I don't see why the author sees it as a sign the OSS community, in particular, is "the epitome of a hostile misogynistic work environment".
Further, to publicly name the guy over this seems harsh. I don't really see what he did as a big deal. I've probably done similar things many times, as well as having similar done to me. If you're drinking with members of the opposite sex, have some rapport, kidding around, etc., then slapping a butt, putting a hand on a thigh, etc., is usually cool. Why the need to tell the entire world, probably ruining the dude's career?
Further, to publicly name the guy over this seems harsh. I don't really see what he did as a big deal. I've probably done similar things many times, as well as having similar done to me. If you're drinking with members of the opposite sex, have some rapport, kidding around, etc., then slapping a butt, putting a hand on a thigh, etc., is usually cool. Why the need to tell the entire world, probably ruining the dude's career?
Seriously? Are you reading the same blog post I am?
"He grabbed me, pulled me in to him, and kissed me. I tried to push him off, and told him I wasn’t interested (I may have been less eloquent, but I don’t think I was less clear). He responded by jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling."
If you've "done similar things many times" you _are_ part of the problem, and are prabaly lucky not to be in jail for it.
"He grabbed me, pulled me in to him, and kissed me. I tried to push him off, and told him I wasn’t interested (I may have been less eloquent, but I don’t think I was less clear). He responded by jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling."
If you've "done similar things many times" you _are_ part of the problem, and are prabaly lucky not to be in jail for it.
I don't know what "jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling" even means - did he penetrate her with three fingers right through her underwear (was she not wearing pants/skirt?), or was he playing with an exposed thong T-bar, or something else?
By something "similar" I mean I've been "rejected" by girls before, and not immediately raised my hands in submission and backed off. E.g., talking to a girl, tried to make out with her, and she said no, depending on what I thought, I might, say, keep a hand on her thigh, or playing with her pantie line. Not a perfect match, but I could definitely see someone wanting to make a big deal twisting that into something along the lines described here.
I could be wrong, and this guy could have committed the very worst interpretation of what the author described. But I doubt it, because the article seems like it's written for maximum effect.
By something "similar" I mean I've been "rejected" by girls before, and not immediately raised my hands in submission and backed off. E.g., talking to a girl, tried to make out with her, and she said no, depending on what I thought, I might, say, keep a hand on her thigh, or playing with her pantie line. Not a perfect match, but I could definitely see someone wanting to make a big deal twisting that into something along the lines described here.
I could be wrong, and this guy could have committed the very worst interpretation of what the author described. But I doubt it, because the article seems like it's written for maximum effect.
I don't know what "jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling" even means
Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive?
Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests.
Disgusting.
Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive?
Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests.
Disgusting.
> Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
says:
"Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. "
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
says:
"Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you. "
edited, thx
Is there any context/interpretation/way of which some dude jamming his hand into your underwear and fumbling after being told you weren't interested in such a thing wouldn't be considered highly invasive?
Using the words "jamming" and "fumbling" are interpretations. See the examples I gave above for, IMO, more benign actions which could be interpreted that way.
Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests.
Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me.
Huh? I'm the only possible candidate for "rationalizing sticking your hand down a women's pants despite her protests", and several people have disagreed with me. So no need to act like a martyr. :)
Using the words "jamming" and "fumbling" are interpretations. See the examples I gave above for, IMO, more benign actions which could be interpreted that way.
Jesus H. Christ, only in the geek community can people be outraged at backscatter machines and TSA patdowns, and then try in rationalize sticking your hand down a woman's pants despite her protests.
Disgusting. Go ahead, down mod me.
Huh? I'm the only possible candidate for "rationalizing sticking your hand down a women's pants despite her protests", and several people have disagreed with me. So no need to act like a martyr. :)
Obviously one of us is misunderstanding something fundamental here. I can't think of a single plausible "innocent" interpretation of that. While it's not particularly detailed, every single reasonable interpretation seems to me to be "Yep, send the guy to jail, register him on a sex offender list".
Be assured if you ever do anything that was described that way to any female friend of mine, even if "written for maximum effect", I'll _strongly_ be encouraging them to do what is needed to have you locked up.
You can argue if you want that the girl is outright lying, but as described the guy is a criminal and needs to be held responsible for his actions.
I'm struggling with all the empathy I can muster up to understand your point of view, and I honestly can't work out how you could _possibly_ condone the guys actions for any possible interpretation of the words in the original blog post.
Be assured if you ever do anything that was described that way to any female friend of mine, even if "written for maximum effect", I'll _strongly_ be encouraging them to do what is needed to have you locked up.
You can argue if you want that the girl is outright lying, but as described the guy is a criminal and needs to be held responsible for his actions.
I'm struggling with all the empathy I can muster up to understand your point of view, and I honestly can't work out how you could _possibly_ condone the guys actions for any possible interpretation of the words in the original blog post.
Well, up until the 'he leaned in and kissed me, I told him not interested' part, I don't think it's terribly controversial to suggest no crime had happened. Had it just ended with that, no big deal. It's just the "jamming his hand into my underwear" part that seems to approach/cross the line. A plausible interpretation of that is "touched my butt", which while unlikely to win the girl over, I don't see as something deserving of being "locked up", or, perhaps worse, having his career ruined as it surely now has.
I should add, in all honesty, I don't completely believe the girl's account of this. There's 6 or 7 things in there which just don't make a whole lot of sense to me (the "logistics" of the whole thing, to borrow someone else's word). You add in her reaction, writing a blog post detailing it, naming names, etc., the very next day it, just seems suspect (not to mention her claims this has happened before - she must be very unlucky!) . I could be completely wrong here, and defending a bad guy. But that's not a big deal, as we can see there's no shortage of white knights rushing to the poor girl's defense.
I should add, in all honesty, I don't completely believe the girl's account of this. There's 6 or 7 things in there which just don't make a whole lot of sense to me (the "logistics" of the whole thing, to borrow someone else's word). You add in her reaction, writing a blog post detailing it, naming names, etc., the very next day it, just seems suspect (not to mention her claims this has happened before - she must be very unlucky!) . I could be completely wrong here, and defending a bad guy. But that's not a big deal, as we can see there's no shortage of white knights rushing to the poor girl's defense.
I imagine that it is terrifying for a person when another person proceeds with contact of a sexual nature after being informed that it is not welome. 100% of rapes begin this way.
Even if it's an exposed thong T-bar, I'd really like it if people could keep their hands out of other peoples underwear. What's hard to understand about this?
Also, if a girl says "no", and you keep a hand on her thigh, I sincerely hope one of them actually presses charges - you are part of the problem. "No" means exactly that.
Also, if a girl says "no", and you keep a hand on her thigh, I sincerely hope one of them actually presses charges - you are part of the problem. "No" means exactly that.
She said no, then he touched her. Your opinion of the seriousness of that is irrelevant; the action we're discussing is, depending on subtle icky details, either a serious misdemeanor or a felony. In no interpretation of the story we have is it not a crime --- one with a name, and everything.
I think calling him out publicly by name was too much, and that she should have filed a restraining order or charges against him if she thought it was that traumatic.
Again, not excusing what he did, it was stupid as all get-up, but he was probably plastered and thought he was being adventurous.
Also, if a woman did this to a man, he would have said "whoa whoa whoa, now... no thank you" and walked away, and nothing would have been said.
Again, not excusing what he did, it was stupid as all get-up, but he was probably plastered and thought he was being adventurous.
Also, if a woman did this to a man, he would have said "whoa whoa whoa, now... no thank you" and walked away, and nothing would have been said.
> if a woman did this to a man,
If some women did this to some men, ...
Your sense of outrage should not rule her bodily autonomy.
If some women did this to some men, ...
Your sense of outrage should not rule her bodily autonomy.
- We need to have codes of conduct in our projects and conferences that specifically ban abusive and sexist behavior: I don't see how a "Code of Conduct" is going to be more compelling than the law. Nor do I believe the type of person who would stick his hand down a girls pants or cheer someone like that on is going to adhere to a code of conduct no matter what.
- Trainings around diversity and sexual harassment: Sexual Harassment trainings are done so employees will be able to recognize sexual harassment. Does anyone think there's an employee out there who wouldn't consider sticking your hand down a girl's pants sexual harassment? Moreover the two people didn't work for the same company anyway so it wasn't sexual harassment as much as it was a...y'know... felony.
- Keep speaking out: As the post points out all "speaking out" did was cause this woman to be further abused. What she should (and apparently did do) is speak to the police.
People keep trying to make this into a macro issue and it's not. There might very well be misogyny in the tech industry but this is no more a sign of it than a rapist would be a sign of misogyny in a particular town.