Ir al contenido principal

Ralsina.Me — El sitio web de Roberto Alsina

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:

http://s0.i1.picplzthumbs.com/upload/img/9b/be/1e/9bbe1e8c53e414b0c1c652b6e8684586ddbe9d3e_400r.jpg

¿En otros paí­ses di­ría "No se per­mi­ten pe­rro­s", no?

¿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.

bwmaister / 2012-06-22 04:14:

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.

Roberto Alsina / 2012-06-22 10:31:

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.

bwmaister / 2012-06-22 11:51:

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.

Roberto Alsina / 2012-06-22 14:22:

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.

bwmaister / 2012-06-22 15:10:

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.

Roberto Alsina / 2012-06-22 15:19:

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.

bwmaister / 2012-06-22 15:33:

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.

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe / 2012-06-22 23:37:

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?

kent37 / 2012-06-22 11:41:

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.

Roberto Alsina / 2012-06-22 14:23:

thanks!

Santiago Cabezas / 2012-06-22 23:42:

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."


Contents © 2000-2020 Roberto Alsina