I don't get it
I don't get it
Posted Dec 2, 2010 0:07 UTC (Thu) by jackb (guest, #41909)In reply to: I don't get it by xtifr
Parent article: The dark side of open source conferences
When you find yourself (no matter your gender) dealing with a jerk your options are basically as follows: ignore it, deal with it yourself or complain about it. If you reach adulthood without learning how to deal with the jerks yourself then that's really your own problem.
It would be great if that skill wasn't necessary but wishing that jerks didn't exist in the world isn't going to make it so. If people would focus more on standing up for themselves rather than appealing to authority figures they'd make a lot more progress.
Posted Dec 2, 2010 0:29 UTC (Thu)
by AndreE (guest, #60148)
[Link]
No one is legislating against anything.
We are applying our right to self selection.
People are free to be jerks, and others are free to ignore them and exclude them from their community
Posted Dec 2, 2010 2:01 UTC (Thu)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link] (3 responses)
Really? Because authority figures have, you know, authority. I mean, standing up for yourself is a fine thing to do, but there's a limit to what you can do as a random attendee, and I don't see how it'd be some moral failing to ask the organizers to do their damn job. If someone is harassing people, the appropriate response is to kick them out, and I can't do that, but the conference organizers can (and should). Or would you prefer, like, some sort of vigilante justice?
The fact is, in a conference setting, some people have more authority than others. So those people have to make a choice. They can use that authority to back up the jerks (e.g., by egging them on from the podium or just ignoring legitimate complaints) or to back up the non-jerks (e.g. by kicking out people who harass others and not inviting them back).
And the nature of authority is that whichever option they pick is likely to have much more of an effect on how the conference turns out than whatever I do. So in practice, telling attendees that they should stand up for themselves and stop whining means (1) you're saying that it's okay for people with authority to back up the jerks, and (2) it's the responsibility of individual (female) attendees to take on not just the jerks, but the whole conference apparatus.
Posted Dec 2, 2010 9:49 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Dec 3, 2010 14:01 UTC (Fri)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 5, 2010 1:16 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Dec 2, 2010 2:50 UTC (Thu)
by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
[Link]
What you are saying is that adult victims of any kind of harassment (be it sexual harassment at open source conferences, bullying at work, war rape, ...) have to deal with it on their own, because it's their own fault?
Posted Dec 2, 2010 4:24 UTC (Thu)
by james_w (guest, #51167)
[Link]
True, but we can make it very difficult for them to do it at our conferences.
This isn't about stopping everyone in the world from being jerks, this is about keeping it out of our conferences, so that a minority don't spoil them for everyone else, and prevent us from getting more contributors.
One jerk can do a lot of damage, including stopping 10 or 100 people from contributing to a project or attending a conference.
James
I don't get it
I don't get it
I don't get it
Or would you prefer, like, some sort of vigilante justice?
I cannot imagine how horrifying libertarian conferences must be (if there are enough libertarians even in the US to have conferences of any kind).
I don't get it
I don't get it
Adult harassment victims did nothing wrong
> yourself then that's really your own problem.
I don't get it