On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:51:21PM -0400, Marina Zhurakhinskaya wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau <[email protected]> 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_joke > > > I'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
pgpP6xGKW26q_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ guadec-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/guadec-list
