Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's get a little louder

juliaelman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: Let's get a little louder

#81

Post by blubbar »

booty wrote: post #63

I've been in this conference organizer's shoes before. On one hand, running a conference/convention is difficult enough without being asked to referee personal conflicts. It almost inevitably devolves into a he-said/she-said kind of argument. But on the other hand, if we take that kind of an attitude, that's essentially a signal for predatory men to go ahead and harass women (or worse). That's pretty much what predat…

No, that's just the signal "That's beyond my scope", a sign of professionalism. If you try to be hobby cop and judge you will fail. That's a job for the pros.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#82

Post by mtrimpe »

sneak wrote: post #73
mtrimpe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the response from the organizer should have been very simple and straight-forward: Ask the person to leave the conference and ideally, if it still had to take place, canceling their talk as well. I doubt anything but praise would have resulted from that, even though the best outcome would be that it was kept private and became a little piece of background gossip floating around the Django-community.

Sorry to go all patriarchy here, but the little Schneier on my shoulder just explained to me how to get anyone's talk cancelled at a conference that institutes this sort of policy. I'm not sure that's a workable fix, either. This is sort of a hard problem.

Judging from the organizer's response there was little doubt concerning the validity of her claims in this case though.

In other cases, pulling said person into a room, asking him if the claims are true and if so asking them to leave is already a big step forward.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#83

Post by wpietri »

supernooneo wrote: post #20
jamesaguilar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it doesn't hurt to have the conference take a stand?

Take a stand against what? Unproven claims?

One can take a stand against the kind of bad behavior without being prejudicial toward the accused.

E.g., the organizer could go to the culprit and say, "As you know, Joe, we take sexual harassment very seriously here. Could you tell me what happened last night at the bar?"

I could imagine a lot of ways it goes from there, but all of them seem compatible with taking a strong stand against jackassery without giving up a strong stand for fairness.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#84

Post by icebraining »

ta12121 wrote: post #61
icebraining wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I then (...) asked how his daughter was, thinking that would snap him out of it. And with a blank stare he said bluntly, "She's a slut." I'm having much trouble seeing what kind of person except an extreme asshole would say something like this. Regardless of what they really think.

Someone who's frustrated and being unable to control their teenage daughter?

I've met frustrated parents, from those with lazy kids to those whose kids where skipping (and failing) most classes to go smash stuff and do drugs (and not exactly pot) with adolescent criminals.

I still believe only an asshole would talk about their son or daughter like that, particularly to someone not close.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#85

Post by [deleted] »

xutopia wrote: post #14

I've gotten into a bar fight to protect a woman I did not know. I almost got into a fight in the subway for the same reason, twice. However I can't stand these kinds of stories. All I hear is one socially awkward guy trying really hard in the worst possible way. I'm conflicted because on the other hand the guy seemed like an asshole but I have only one side of the story and feel like it would be jumping to conclusion…

[deleted]

Re: Let's get a little louder

#86

Post by koide »

ovi256 wrote: post #74
koide wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll repeat myself to ease your fear of the rabid hordes of malignant women who want to make your life miserable: "they can make clear what will happen if they get a complaint about you." Of course what will happen from a complaint should take malignancy in consideration and offer at least some kind of right to respond to offenders.

>I'll repeat myself to ease your fear of the rabid hordes of malignant women who want to make your life miserable: "they can make clear what will happen if they get a complaint about you." Can be paraphrased to apply to "rabid hordes of adulterous men who want to make your life miserable". Better ? I'm just pointing out that for people discussing how to best setup procedures for handling deviant behaviour, you sure a…

Of course it's a hard problem. (And I've never assumed perfect honesty on either part. It seems you just read what you wanted to read to make your point.)

What I'm claiming is that policies ARE needed, the current "hmm, what should I do now?" policy is the worst policy of them all, because improvised decisions aren't usually the best ones.

Such a policy can any policy, from "yes, we believe all women, be them malignant or not, and we'll ban you on the first offense" up to "I don't care what you people do outside of the venue, you should call the cops (here's the number) if you have a problem." It's important to know where the organizer stands to take your pick. There might even be a niche for "female-friendly conferences" that will by definition have harsher policies on the issue.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#87

Post by wpietri »

jen_h wrote: post #75
pinko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that defecating in the hallways isn't a routine practice in our industry, but sexual harassment of the sort she describes is. There's a need for more awareness and action within the community -- and a hands-off "let the law take care of it" attitude ignores that a lot of this happens out of the public eye, and can only be stopped when people close to it take a more public stand against it.

The point is that sexual harassment shouldn't be routine and we shouldn't tolerate it. I sort of understand where the anti-harassment policy folks are coming from, but I vehemently disagree that it's appropriate to codify common decency and respect, especially in technical circles, where we should all know better. We should strive to treat each other with respect regardless of gender, race, or anything else for that…

I don't think a policy is just about codifying respect. It's also about putting together a mechanism for handling the inevitable failures. Consider the model policy from the Ada Initiative:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_ant...

A good chunk of that is about how the working-to-fix part works. I think that's really valuable to have thought through in advance. I have banned people before (never for this, thank goodness) and in the moment it's incredibly hard to avoid over- or under-reacting if you have to think everything through from first principles.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#88

Post by JohnBooty »

lambda wrote: post #78

I am really quite disturbed by all of the people who are responding something along the lines of "this isn't the conference organizer's problem, it's happening outside of the conference." I've seen several such replies, so rather than responding to one, I'm responding to the whole sentiment here. At a conference, there is a lot that goes on during unofficial off-hours, that is really an integral part of the conferenc…

> It sounds like the person in question had a history of > problems, as the organizer said he shouldn't have allowed > this person to come to the conference.

Even then, it may be far from clear-cut. We don't know what those problems are. Have there been reports of harassment regarding this guy? If so, that's fairly clear-cut. But maybe this is just kind of a jerk, but hasn't done anything over the line before.

While conference organizers certainly shouldn't put their heads in the sand, realistically they're a small part of the potential solution. The community at large really has the most power here - it has many more eyes and ears than the (usually overworked) conference organizers.

I'm wondering where the rest of the community was when this harassment was going on at the bar. The victim says they were there in a group. So a whole group of conference attendees was just standing around, letting this victim be harassed?

Unlike the conference organizers, they were there. At the bar. In close proximity.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#89

Post by harryf »

lambda wrote: post #78

I am really quite disturbed by all of the people who are responding something along the lines of "this isn't the conference organizer's problem, it's happening outside of the conference." I've seen several such replies, so rather than responding to one, I'm responding to the whole sentiment here. At a conference, there is a lot that goes on during unofficial off-hours, that is really an integral part of the conferenc…

Great points. Also find a few of the comments here a bit disturbing. Perhaps theres a cultural gap going on but where I am in Western Europe, this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable. IMO it's also everyone's responsibility to solve it, whether they run a conference, a bar or are just participating. It's not about finding some way to deny the problem or blame the messenger.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#90

Post by mnicole »

JohnBooty wrote: post #88
lambda wrote: post #78

I am really quite disturbed by all of the people who are responding something along the lines of "this isn't the conference organizer's problem, it's happening outside of the conference." I've seen several such replies, so rather than responding to one, I'm responding to the whole sentiment here. At a conference, there is a lot that goes on during unofficial off-hours, that is really an integral part of the conferenc…

> It sounds like the person in question had a history of > problems, as the organizer said he shouldn't have allowed > this person to come to the conference. Even then, it may be far from clear-cut. We don't know what those problems are. Have there been reports of harassment regarding this guy? If so, that's fairly clear-cut. But maybe this is just kind of a jerk, but hasn't done anything over the line before. While…

"I'm wondering where the rest of the community was when this harassment was going on at the bar. So a whole group of conference attendees was just standing around, letting this victim be harassed?"

As many of the comments here suggest, people just expect that these types of people will stop if/when a woman puts her foot down and says something to the guy. This sounds great in theory, but for people like the harasser, it often just agitates their behavior.

In a male-dominated group setting, he probably felt even more comfortable and possibly even validated by his peers when none of them chimed in (if they were overhearing any of the conversation). For men and women alike, even though it isn't right, people find it easier to try to ignore it than make it an issue in front of others -- especially people you respect and are likely to see and interact with again.

What Julie really emphasizes in her post is that this innocent-bystander attitude needs to be addressed -- this guy shouldn't have felt it was within his grasp to solicit her to begin with. Even creeps have limitations and a more active community approach in dealing with the very concept of them can help stop it.

Post reply on HN