On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:51:21PM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau gmail com> wrote:Sexual language and imagery are a common concern. If there are other types of concerns people think are worth listing, they can be added. E.g. it can be "Sexual or violent language and imagery are not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks"This is a common concern in some circles yes. What we seem to be doing here is assuming people are going to do bad (ie are going to be jerks), and to avoid this, we have to put ourselves in the position of censors.People will sometimes act as jerks either because they feel like it or because they don't realize how their actions affect others. This happens at technical conferences often. It happens at GUADEC rarely, but there have been a few incidents (most of them private).
Uh? I was talking about explicitly banning public display of sexual imagery in the anti-harassment policy, I don't think these private incindents had something to do with this, did they?
Having a policy doesn't mean we assume everyone will be a jerk, but we want to deter or know how to deal with a jerk-like behavior because it might happen.
Well, public display of sexual imagery is not the only way of being a jerk, I'm not talking about the anti-harassement policy as a whole here. I can find plenty of offensive pictures which are not banned by the policy (for example, Muhammad pictures, especially caricatures would be a *very* bad thing to do). Why is the policy not banning that because some people could be jerks? Also, I remember https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-moXUALZtw caused some issues in a past GUADEC, but still we do nothing about this in the policy, and we try to prevent potential abuse of sexual imagery?
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/EMACS_virgins_jokeI'm sorry, but I don't think we should be doing that. I'd rather assume people will do good, tell them we trust them to behave appropriately, and possibly reminding them to be wary of others' sensibilities. This seems much more positive to me and more rewarding for our community.We assume people will be good and abide by the anti-harassment policy. We have people of different genders and from different cultures attending, which is why spelling out what it means to behave appropriately is helpful.
This was again in the context of the ban of sexual imagery, I was not talking about the anti-harassment policy as a whole.
Also, how do we define 'sexual'? Is http://www.quandjeseraigrande.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Pub-Galeries-Lafayette-Jean-Paul-Goude1.jpg some sexual imagery which should be banned? (NB: this is an ad campaign from a big French department store prominently visible in Paris metro). Content which is OK in the US would probably be frowned upon/unsettling from some more 'traditionalist' countries or background. How do we set the bar here?I think we can set the bar to exclude images that convey a sexual message, because they are off-topic for GUADEC.
What is "a sexual message"? Who will decide that? For some muslim, women's hair must be covered, or even most of the face ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam ) « The principal aim of the Muslim veil is to hide that which men find sexually attractive. ».
GUADEC is a private event, and we can decide what is appropriate for it. If sexual images or language are not appropriate for it and we ask people not to use them, then using them is a harassing act. You can learn more about why people often feel that these types of images and language are harassing at technical conferences at http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources#Sexualized_environment
This is what I was saying at the beginning, I understand that sexualized images are a concern for 'geek feminists'. I expect that different kind of images will be a problem if there were vocal 'black geeks' or 'jewish geeks' communities. I'm also not saying sexualized imagery is ok, just that I don't see why this should be explicitly listed in that policy. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpFu9s9C9Vz0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
