Sobre Códigos de Conducta, Carteles y Modales.
-- Tato (mi hijo, a los 4 años)
Últimamente se ha hablado mucho sobre códigos de conducta en conferencias. No tengo muchas respuestas, pero tengo muchas preguntas en la cabeza, y algunas cosas me hacen ruido, así que quiero volcar un poco lo que tengo adentro, y veamos si surge algo de claridad.
Lo principal parece ser que estos códigos de conducta propuestos apuntan a hacer que los eventos sean inclusivos, y más diversos, y que gente que en el pasado no se sentía bienvenida ahora lo sea. Que entre esa gente se cuente a las mujeres debería ser un llamado de atención. ¿Mujeres? ¡Son la mitad del mundo! Y aparentemente con intención o no, las estamos excluyendo.
Entonces, en principio, si adoptar un código de conducta ayuda con eso, vamos con eso. Lo mismo sobre gays, lesbianas, transexuales, etc. No son el 50% de la gente, pero son tipo el 10%, así que es un montón de gente, y agregarlos a nuestro grupo es una optimización fácil.
Sin embargo, me preocupa un poco que estos códigos de conducta contengan lenguaje como éste:
Acoso incluye comentarios verbales ofensivos relacionados con género, orientación sexual, discapacidades, apariencia física, tamaño del cuerpo, raza, religión, imágenes sexuales en lugares públicos, intimidación deliberada, stalking, seguimiento, fotografía o grabación no autorizada o inapropiada, interrupción sostenida de charlas u otros eventos, contacto físico inapropiado, y atención sexual no bienvenida.
Algunos son completamente obvios, gente que interrumpe las charlas en las conferencias hay que echarla, la intimidación es abominable, el stalking es una cagada, etc. ¿Pero "comentarios verbales ofensivos relacionados con [todo]"?
Y acá tengo que hacer un desvío y mostrarles un cartel. Cuando estuve en Londres una cosa que me llamaba la atención eran los carteles en las calles. Ejemplo:
¿Y porqué son así? Es probable que sea porque son gente muy muy muy educada. También porque los carteles ofensivos son castigados con pena de prisión.
Tengo la infundada sospecha de que primero fueron educados, y después vino el derecho a que nadie te ofenda, que terminó siendo ley, y ahora tenés que ser educado o si no vas a ver.
Soy un ateo bastante ruidoso, pero sólo lo menciono afuera de este blog si otro menciona su religión primero. Por ejemplo, si alguien dice "menos averigua dios y perdona", capaz que le digo "eso es porque no existe", como una broma. De ahora en más tengo que asumir que eso puede ser ofensivo y no lo puedo hacer. Y está bien, puedo vivir con eso, puedo estar unas horas sin ofender a nadie. Hace mucho que no trato, pero creo que puedo.
Y en un evento privado, como es una conferencia, no hay una libertad inherente de expresión, porque tienen derecho de admisión y me pueden rajar cuando quieran sin explicaciones, y estoy de acuerdo con eso, porque me reservo el derecho de rajar gente de mi casa.
Así que ok, dejamos la religión afuera. No tiene lugar en una conferencia técnica de todos modos, y como protesta voy a ponerme mi remera del unicornio rosa invisible (parece una remera gris cuello en v).
Y no me jode no molestar gente por su género o preferencias sexuales. Soy lo bastante viejo y pajuerano como para que si dos tipos se dan un beso al lado mío, me molesta un poco. Por suerte soy lo bastante adulto como para decirme a mí mismo "sos un viejo pajuerano" y mirar para otro lado. Después de todo, he visto gente a la que le molesta que bese a mi esposa en público, y hacerlo me gusta, así que cada uno a besar a lo suyo, y todos contentos. Por otro lado, a mí me gustan las mujeres, a mi esposa le gusto yo, así que puedo entender casi cualquier gusto.
Por otro lado, entiendo que la mera presencia de alguien puede ser ofensivo para otros. Conozco gente que prefiere pasar dos horas parado que sentarse al lado de un transexual, o bajarse del bondi en cualquier lado antes que "soportarlo". Y soy lo bastante viejo y pajuerano que los entiendo. Así que ofender no es la cosa, porque ofender se ofende cualquiera por cualquier cosa, si con solo estar ofendés, no quiero que no estés. Lo que queremos es que no se ofendan, o que se ofendan y se la aguanten callados, o que se ofendan y no le importe a nadie.
Y sí, invitar gente a enfiestarse cuando te los cruzás en los pasillos es mucho (yo nunca invito a tríos antes de la cuarta cita porque es mala educación). Tratar de levantarse gente en un bar a la noche no es tan grave, a menos que molestes, en cuyo caso espero un círculo protector de gente copada para que el desubicado no arruine su propia noche ni la del otro. Pero bueno, no sé, nunca encaré ni me encararon en un bar, excepto otros tipos, porque tengo esa suerte.
Lo que queremos es que sean educados. Queremos que se traten todos bien los unos a los otros. Queremos que todos sean tan educados como puedan con la mayor cantidad de gente que puedan. Especialmente quiero que todos sean muy educados con la gente que peor les caiga. Porque con la gente que te llevás bien, capaz que no importa.
Por otro lado debe haber algo acá que no estoy viendo, porque esto de la tolerancia y el respeto no es lo mío, yo estoy a favor del proselitismo, la falta de respeto, la molestia ingeniosa y poner incómoda a la gente. Pero en general trato de no hacerlo personalmente, si no de tirar cosas a la tribuna y ver que pasa.
A mí me han fotografiado sin pedirme permiso. ¡Me han escaneado la remera sin pedirme permiso! (Ok, admito que tener un código de barras en la remera es un permiso implícito), me han puesto nombres feos, pero yo sé que como dijo un escritor, estoy jugando la vida en el nivel fácil, porque soy un varón blanco, relativamente sano, heterosexual, de clase media para arriba con un buen laburo. No sé qué se siente ser gay, o atractivo, o atractivo a los gays, ni nada. No soy acosable porque la cara me salva el culo. Y sé que otros no tienen esa suerte.
Así que si bien esa clase de códigos me llena de dudas, y me hace pensar en qúe clase de comunidad he estado moviéndome estos años, ignorando todas estas cosas que ahora salen a la luz, lo voy a seguir. Nunca los rompí intencionalmente antes (bueno, una vez saqué una foto inapropiada pero fué un chiste, la vió una sola persona, y la borré, y me arrepiento, ¿ok?).
Así que ojalá en los próximos eventos que vaya haya mucha gente que no conozco. Ojalá no ofenda a nadie de forma irreparable. Voy a tratar de ser tranqui. Voy a ser abierto e inclusivo. Voy a ser copado. Peor acordáte, si soy muy muy copado capaz que es porque no te banco. De nada.
So, since I've been reading about this, and I think I know where you're coming from, and since you seem honestly curious about why people would do this, I'm going to try and answer. I normally ignore these kinds of posts.
The point of these policies is encouraging women (and other oppressed people) to attend large events that they would normally not attend. It is to provide them with a safe space (defined here: http://www.idioprag.com/201... ).
The point is that women, in every culture, worldwide, are dismissed when they have complaints. It is easy, everywhere, for men to make women *extremely* uncomfortable with no repercussions to the men. Not "oh I'm a christian in a room full of atheists" uncomfortable. That's the kind of uncomfortable where you might feel like an idiot if you say the wrong thing. That's the same kind of uncomfortable that Astrophysicists feel at Cosmology conferences: you're out of your element and you're scared that people are going to make fun of you, or think less of you.
Christian and Astrophysicists don't have to deal with "tits or GTFO" every day that they're on the internet. Unless they're women.
So, if you're a con organizer you have basically two options: either be silent and tacitly accept that the culture is correct and that you do not want the smart women at your event.
Or else you scream as loudly as possible that if a woman complains about a man with an upskirt camera ( http://freethoughtblogs.com... ) *something will be done.*
You do this by having a strong anti-harassment policy, and telling every attendee "hey, look, we have a *strong* anti-harassment policy, don't fuck with us, and don't fuck with women. You don't want to be on our bad side."
You make it clear that no matter how screwed up society is, everyone important in your community is on the side of women. That your community will always, at first push, treat women as *people* who deserve to be able to attend events without getting harassed.
Posts like this one say that you don't understand where women (LGBTQ, etc) are coming from, or that you disagree with the principle of inclusiveness. This one sounds honest enough, to me, a man, that I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and *not* take this as part of the never-ending stream of "but women aren't actually oppressed" BS that exists on the internet.
But only barely.
It is posts like this one, posts that say that women are over-reacting, or that cons are over-reacting, that tell women that they are not welcome.
If you read this, and come up with me being against the principle of inclusiveness, then I must have done a very poor job of writing it. Specially the parts about me being *for* the principle of inclusiveness, and the parts where I said I agree with the codes of conduct being put in place, and about me trying really hard to follow them and curb my instinct to be an equal opportunity annoying person.
May I point out that you are using the word "fuck" in comments, which is offensive and then delete your post? No I will not because I don't give a fuck about you using the word fuck, but suppose now the next reader comes here and says "hey, quodlibetor has offended me, he used a word he's not supposed to use, please delete his comment!". That's what happens with "strong" policies. Don't worry, I don't have one, and therefore you are welcome to say fuck.
Does that mean you are against inclusiveness? That you are *for* offensive language? That you like offending people's sensitivities about seeing the word fuck in something they may have found innocently in a technical site? I don't think it does. I think you were trying to be *for* those things, you just expressed yourself in an way that is offensive to some.
If I were organizing an event and someone reported the case of an upskirtcam, I would kick that person with the camera out of the event (metaphorically, I am not much into kicking people literally these last 25 years or so).
Do I say in this post that women are overreacting? Hell no. I wish people had no need for thick skins, and I understand that women do get harassed, and I wish it did not happen, which is why I am *for* these codes of conduct, and not just about women, as I thought I had made clear and probably did not.
Do you know what the second most popular story on my blog ever was? It was an extremely insulting post about how those who are against inclusive marriage. It was a list of their usual arguments with explanations about how those arguments make those who use them look like idiots. I am pretty happy about it, it was, as I said *extremely* insulting. I still think it was insulting in the name of freedom and inclusion, and I still think that was a good thing.
Just like your comment here seems (to me) to be at the same time insulting, condescending and at the same time I like it because it is insulting and condescending for a good cause. I tried to write a post that was not insulting, and was for a good cause. I failed. I will try to clarify as needed.
I appreciate your response and, while I was trying to be insulting (to the effects of your post), I was trying to *not* be insulting to you, or condescending at all. That's what I get for writing on the internet.
I do think that your response misses the point that I was trying to make, reasonable since I ranted instead of expressed myself.
Most importantly: I am glad that you are pro sexual-harassment policy. That does not come across to me in your post, and it changes what you're saying--in my mind--from "why are the organizers trying to keep us from having a good time?" to "We really need to be careful when we handle things so that we don't become a culture that can't handle comedians."
Another point: I think that the fundamental logical error that you made in your post was the line ""offensive verbal comments related to [everything]"...
Which, upon re-reading the original policy, is actually a good point: "gender, sexual
orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion." One of these things is not like the other. The first six things that the the policy requires us to avoid being offensive about are all physical. The last is a set of beliefs. Beliefs don't change unless you talk about them, physical characteristics don't change.
Physical attributes are commonly used to marginalize groups of people: the first six groups in that list are regularly attacked. The last group is not. The first six describe groups that, to varying degrees, are under-represented, probably *because* they are regularly "attacked". The last group is not.
But, that's in my communities. Perhaps whichever con's policy you're reading has had some serious problems with religion-bashing, in which case: bully for them.
So, just to be clear: your post came across, to me, as being anti-protection of regularly attacked and marginalized groups in order to defend your right to free speech. I didn't like that.
Ok, so what happened is that you read a post containing things like "If adopting a code of conduct helps [diversity], I am all for it.", decided that it didn't meet your standard of enlightenment, and responded by dropping some fuckbombs in the comments in my blog, with the intention to be insulting (but not to me! (offensive to whom, then?)), and all this is supposed to show that you are *for* diversity and respect.
I officially give up, the world is too difficult, I will go shopping instead.
You say "in principle, If adopting a code of conduct helps [diversity], I am all for it". That "in principle" says that you're about to say "but this is going too far." Which you *almost*, but don't quite, do. You *do* spend a lot of time talking about how limiting offensiveness can be harmful, and, since I misread the original policy, I thought you were explicitly talking about offending women.
The overall intent of the blog confused me, obviously, since I thought you were saying something that you weren't. I didn't comment because you "didn't meet my standards of enlightenment," I commented because what I thought you were saying harms communities that I care about, and I respect you so I wanted to at least share my opinion.
Yes, I cursed in your comments. I was angry at the state of the world, and expressing what I thought was an appropriate response to it. In my mind cursing--especially in a medium where it's shocking and a little unpleasant--is an appropriate way to show that you don't approve of something as terrible as our culture. The only people I intended to offend were misogynists.
We must have different understandings of what "in principle" means, which may be my mistake because I am not a native english speaker. I used it in the meaning I saw in the dictionary of "with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details", meaning I was about to nitpick something I generally agree with.
So, maybe it was a misunderstanding. But yet, your reaction was to assume you knew what I was saying, and then go on the offensive telling me "Posts like this one say that you [...] disagree with the principle of inclusiveness" and that I "barely" am not saying "women aren't actually oppressed BS".
You are lucky that I am very, very, very hard to offend.
And no, dropping "fuck" in comments in random sites doesn't only offend misogynists. It offends those who are offended by foul language, (among which I am not included, luckily). Looks like you still need to work on that tolerance thing.
Yes, well, that's what happens with misunderstandings. I still think that your post lends itself to misunderstanding.
I didn't "assume [I] knew what you were [saying]", I read your post and responded to it. You didn't write as clearly as you could have, I didn't read as clearly as I could have.
I certainly didn't assume that you were innocent, but that's because we live in a society of the guilty.
Your comment on astrophysics and cosmology caught my attention. Why would the cosmo guys sneer at the astros? Do they feel their field is superior?
Hi Roberto,
Like you, I am a white, hetero, well-paid male who feels a little uncomfortable with men kissing in public. If you want to see the world from the point of view of someone female, gay, trans, of color - someone who lives life on the high difficulty setting - I strongly recommend reading http://www.shakesville.com/ for a while. It has opened my eyes.
thanks!
Yo soy de los que hacen chistes, a veces desubicados y a veces no, y que después tienen que andar tapando agujeros a la voz de "¿EN SERIO me estás diciendo que ESO te ofendió?.
La gente hace mucho barullo manifestando su ofensa, pero hace realmente poco para llevar la ofensa a un plano que no les moleste. No se si soy claro.
Como diría mi viejo, "si te molesta una boludez, es porque tenés el culo sucio."
O como Linus Torvalds puso, de forma muy inteligente: "I like offending people, because people who get offended deserve to be offended."