Re: [Debconf-team] DebConf anti-harassment policy
Herman Robak dijo [Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 03:00:23PM +0100]:
> (...)
> Dropping any pretense of neutrality for a moment; the goal is
> to avoid making women feel awkward or intimidated by sleazy and
> sexist stuff. I support that goal. Let's debate the suitable
> means to that end.
>
>
> As to 2) ... Yes, some people actually need to get that pointed
> out to them. And they will most likely have to be told, after
> the fact.
>
> I assume the one who feels awkward about sexual attention
> has the burden to tell that it is unwanted. That can be
> quite hard. I think it would be easier to apply a common
> standard of "inappropriate" attention in a code of conduct.
>
> Besides, there is a subtext in the word "unwanted". It asserts
> the freedom to make frivolous advances, yet maintains the right
> to not be at the receiving end of such advances. And the
> involved parties are supposed to "know it when they see it".
> That game is too complicated for me, so I'm not playing.
>
> Lastly, the word "comply" just rubs me the wrong way.
I agree with Herman here. I recognize the need to act on this
regard... But overregulation leads to very uncomfortable
settings. This is in part why I insisted on switching to the broader
aspect of "respect" rather than just the sexual part of it.
Just as an example... Among the best social experiences I recall from
previous DebConfs are the sauna sessions in Finland. And yes,
according to the local customs, and according to our group's way of
being, they were often mixed. And I am _sure_ nobody felt threatened
there. Of course, people not comfortable with that fact didn't join
the sessions - But if we had explicit rules that made us feel
constrained, we would probably not have had the sauna at all.
Anyway, I'm getting too speculative - Just rewording: We have to be
explicitly respectful of everybody, right. But we should avoid losing
the trusting, free environment we have!
Reply to: