On Politeness, Street Signs, and Codes of Conduct
When I grow up, I want a pink car. Girls like pink.
—Tato (my son, age 4 at the time)
There has been a lot of talk lately about codes of conduct in conferences. I don't have answers to much, but I do have a lot of questions in my head, and some things seem to come to my mind because of that, so I will do a little head dumping, and let's see if clarity appears.
So. The main thing seems to be that the proposed codes of conduct aim at making events inclusive, and more diverse, and welcoming to people who may have felt unwelcome in the past. That these groups involve women should be a call of attention. Women? Women are half the world, and apparently we have been excluding them, whether intentionally or not.
So, in principle, if adopting a code of conduct helps that, I am all for it. Same about gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc. They are not 50% of the world, but they are about 10% of it, so it's a very large amount of people, and adding them to our groups is another easy optimization.
However, it concerns me a bit that these codes of conduct contain language like this:
Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, unauthorized or inappropriate photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.
Some are completely obvious, people who disrupt the speakers at conferences are to be thrown out, intimidation is abominable, stalking is creepy, etc. But "offensive verbal comments related to [everything]"?
And here, I have to make a small detour and talk about street signs. When I visited London, one thing that called my attention was the language in street signs. Here's an example:
So, why do they have signs like this? It's probably because they are very polite people. Also, it may be because offensive signs are punishable by jail.
I have a completely unfounded suspicion that the politeness came first, and then came the right not to be offended, which ended encoded into law, and now you just have to be polite, or else.
I am quite loudly atheist, yet I only mention it outside this blog if someone mentions his religion. So, for example, if someone says "god asks less and yet he forgives", I may say "that's because he doesn't exist", as a joke. I am now assuming that saying that in a conference with that kind of code of conduct is going to be considered offensive behaviour. And let's say I am ok with that, I can still go for a few hours without offending people. Have not tried it lately, but I am sure I can do it.
And I know that at a private event, like a conference, there is no inherent freedom of speech, because there is the right of admission, and I can just be kicked out without any explanation, and I am also fine with that, because I reserve the right to kick people out of my own home, too.
So, sure, let's keep religion out of it. It has no place in a technical conference one way or another, and in any case, I will wear my invisible pink unicorn shirt as an outward sign of my atheism (it looks just like a gray v-neck t-shirt).
And I am totally fine about not mocking or harassing people because of their gender or sexual preferences. I am old and provincial enough that when two men start kissing next to me, I feel awkward. Luckily, I am enough of an adult that I just think to myself, "dude, you are a provincial prude" and look the other way. After all, I have seen people take exception to me kissing my wife in public, so, live and let live, whatever. I like women, my wife likes men, so I can understand you liking either.
On the other hand, I understand that the mere existence and presence of some people can be offensive to others. I know people who would rather stand for 2 hours than sit next to a transexual. Or would rather get off the bus instead of being there. And I am enough of an old, provincial prude that I understand them. So, offending is not the thing here, because if offending is the thing, then the mere presence of someone can offend others, and that's the exact opposite of what we want. We want them to either not be offended, or be offended and get over it, or be offended and not care.
So, handing out invitations to threesomes to people in hallways is a bit too much (I never invite people to threesomes before the fourth date, it is gauche). Hitting on people in bars at night is probably not too bad, unless it's a constant thing that ruins the night for someone (what do I know, I have never hit on someone or been hit on in a bar. Except by other men. Just my luck!) in which case I expect a group of nice people to form a protective ring around the poor person who is just too attractive? (again, what do I know, I have never been atractive).
The thing we want is politeness. We want to be nice to each other. We want everyone to be as nice as they possibly can to as many people as they can. Specially, we want everyone to be extremely nice to the people they like the least. Because with people you get along with, you can do crazy stuff you can't do with others.
On the other hand, I suspect there is something else here I am missing. Because tolerance and respect is just not my thing. I am all for proselitizing and disrespect, for creative annoyance and pushing people outside their comfort zones. But I try not to do it personally, I try to throw things to the crowd and see what they do with them.
I mean, I have been photographed without my consent. I have even had my shirt scanned without asking permission (ok, I admit having a QR code in a shirt is sort of an implicit agreement), I have been called names, but I know that, in the words of a scifi writer, I live life in the low difficulty setting, because I am a rather healthy white heterosexual male born in middle class with a job, so again, I don't quite know what it's like to be insanely attractive, or gay, or insanely attractive to gays, or anything. I am not harassable. My face protects me. I know others don't have such powerful defenses.
So, while that kind of language does fill me with trepidation, and makes me wonder what kind of community I have been living in, oblivious to all these things I read about lately, I will accept those codes and try to follow them. I have never intentionally broken them, even before they existed (I did once take an inappropriate picture, it was a joke, I only showed it to one person, and I deleted it, and I really am sorry and would not do it again, ok?)
So, I hope to see a lot of people I don't know in the next free software events I attend. Hopefully I will not offend any of them in a bad way. I will not be too brash. I will try to be inclusive. I will try to be nice. But remember. If I am very, very nice to you, it may be because I can't stand you. You're welcome.
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."