Debugging conference anti-harassment policies [LWN.net]

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 22:20 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]

To be honest, it doesn't.

It drops a red herring (you can have a 'witch hunt' in the modern meaning of the word without executions). It cut-and-pastes some geekfeminism talking points to produce some faulty statistical reasoning, and then makes the argument that there's some possibility that 1) someone who is a rape survivor might be at the talk and 2) might interpet one of the PG-rated bondage-suggestion scenes as a "rape" scene and could become very uncomfortable.

The only "personal" component is that she discloses that she was a rape victim --- but she did not feel the things she suggested a rape victim may feel.

Using her argument, we have many people in our society who have been exposed to moments of great violence (and more returning from wars every day). The vast majority of those people are male. Should any remotely violent image (say, video game screenshots) be banned?

Moreover, I know people for whom *images* of spiders or cockroaches or photographs taken from great heights can induce panic and vertigo. Should we be so insensitive to allow images that have identified phobias attached to them?

With regards to her feeling "uncomfortable" at the thought of all the men in the audience viewing vaguely sexual material, apparently believing that those men (virtually all of whom, no doubt, are non-rapists) would not be able to control their sexual impulses --- I would that I find that highly offensive as a non-rapist member of the sex --- but I will refrain from doing so out of an understanding that her very unfortunate experience may have left her with some highly emotional prejudices for which I should blame her rapist and not her.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 23:26 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

> Moreover, I know people for whom *images* of spiders or cockroaches or photographs taken from great heights can induce panic and vertigo. Should we be so insensitive to allow images that have identified phobias attached to them?

Banning such images is probably inappropriate, but using them should certainly been seen as insensitive.

That doesn't mean that speakers should be afraid of offending the sensibilities of some unknown member of the audience, but a little caution is appropriate. Any speaker who wants to be heard needs to give careful thought about how to present - not just what to present. When a speaker does over-step a boundary, a simple polite complaint and a simple apology should be the end of it.

The real problem here isn't the original offense - it is that fact that some people don't seem to be able to accept that others can reasonably have different standards, and that a community works best when people make concessions for each other.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 0:47 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]

"[the problem is the] fact that some people don't seem to be able to accept that others can reasonably have different standards, and that a community works best when people make concessions for each other."

Neil, who said either of those things exactly?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 2:19 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

> Neil, who said either of those things exactly?

I assume you mean "you said:
Other people cannot reasonably have different standard to me
or
a community doesn't need people to make concessions to each other"

Obviously no-one said those things explicitly.
However when someone says something like "I cannot see why anyone would be bothered by that" (when people clearly were bothered) it comes very close to rejecting people with different standards.
And when someone says that people who are bothered should just get over it, or walk out, or whatever, it comes very close to rejecting the need to make concessions.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 12:43 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]

"... However, when someone says something like ..."

The difference between what these people said, and what you said they said, is the qualification/specificity. No one said "there exist no other reasonable standards". They suggested that some particular standard may not be reasonable. No one said "people don't need to make concessions". They suggested only that some particular concessions should not be made.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 7:39 UTC (Fri) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"The only "personal" component is that she discloses that she was a rape victim"

No, she said: "I have been sexually assaulted"
and since she clearly make the distinction between rape and sexual assault earlier in the post, she is cognizant of a distinction, and presumably choose her words adequately.
Not that the severity of the assault really matter here, but in view of the already wide liberty taken with the numbers and the facts, there is no need to distort the picture even further.

On the other hand she qualify it with 'survivor', and associate the term with every victims of sexual assaulted, which logically imply that every victim of sexual assault was also victim of attempted murder... Since that is clearly unsupported by the references given, I must conclude that this is merely a 'appeal to emotion' fallacy, as if being victim of a rape was not grave enough.

And, talking about being offensive:
"I still felt unease. Why? Because suddenly [...] at least some of the overwhelmingly male audience around me were thinking
about sex."

In other words: show a picture with a content somewhat remotely sexual in nature and these 'animals' won't be able to control themselves anymore.

I wonder why would anyone make any effort to be 'inclusive' of someone who pre-judge them as a uncontrolled automaton prone to turn to a rapist at the mere view of a cartoon of a pig doing a goose ?