Offense and Industry Part II

admin — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:42:27 +0000

I had a feeling that I’d want to add a bit more to what I wrote yesterday, as it’s a complicated subject filled with a lot of tangents (me?? tangents??) and, quite frankly, emotion. The sad thing is, none of this is exceptionally new, and it usually follows a predictable pattern: person does something that offends someone, person states that they’re offended (in a rational or irrational manner), offendor gives passive-aggressive and dismissive rebuttal to offendee, calls offendee some sort of name (like prude) to try to justify/warrant/excuse their behavior, offendee is now on the defensive and making disclaimers, focus is now off of the offendor via smoke and mirrors, lather, rinse, repeat.
And you know what? It’s a great trap. After all, how can I (or anyone else) write about “someone giving a presentation at a professional conference with material that offended people” without making a bunch of disclaimers about how I’m not a prude, that I’m not easily offended, etc. – but when the hell did it become about anything other than his actions and his actions only? Why does it resort to that? It isn’t – and shouldn’t be – about me or my feelings; but in a way, the topic can’t exist if it focuses solely on what was done – because we’ve gotten to a point where if someone disagrees with you and your feelings, you have to make disclaimers that your feelings aren’t related to the negative badge they’ll automatically stick you with to be dismissive of you (in this case, it was ‘prude,’ right? or did it sink so low as to be ‘girl?’). And I was really encouraged (initially) when I saw that very insightful blog post that blatantly stated that it wasn’t about any of the usual off-ramps (like prudishness), but rather about what is considered professional conduct within the tech industry. But how long did it take before there just seemed to be more knee-jerk ‘zomg women should be offended!’ and ‘zomg lighten up free speech’ crap than the actual insightful, productive discussion that could have been occurring instead?
I was very hesitant to say anything at all about the matter, because I am about the farthest thing from the ‘token female’ that you can get. I make men blush constantly (not a disclaimer, just a fact). And I don’t feel like I’ve really written anything terribly deep or profound here, and hopefully no one thinks I have any obligation to do so (as I don’t). But I’m kind of sick of the cycle of people finding it appropriate to push boundaries in professional settings and then retaliating as if the person who expected professional conduct at a professional event was in the wrong. I think it’s sad that so many people are having to justify their opinions – and themselves – when they have nothing to be defensive about. they’re entitled to their opinions AND to have those opinions be respected, even if/when they’re disagreed with. I find it rather sad that Dave now has to deal with the brunt of this; not only because it wasn’t his actions, but because a lot of the knee-jerk response he’s getting don’t help anything, and this could be a great opportunity for the tech community to start thinking about its accepted behaviors and how to be more inclusive of different levels of thinking of what is/isn’t appropriate conduct. Do we get into a ratings system at conferences? Do we make disclaimers? Or do we automatically dismiss any presentation and content that may be considered edgy and pushing boundaries? Should I put up a poster of Dr. Manhattan during my presentations from now on? What’s the right thing to do?

Offense and Industry

admin — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:37:22 +0000

So there’s been a bit of a brouhaha over in the Flash/dev community over a presentation that was given at Flashbelt; unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend (so I can’t speak from firsthand experience about what happened), but I wanted to chime in on some of what’s being said – and not being said – throughout the community as a result.
In a way, it all boils down to this: a presenter displayed some images and made some comments that were crude & offensive to some of the people there – and for what it’s worth, ‘some of the people there’ is NOT synonymous with ‘women.’ Words are being thrown around like ‘pornographic’ and ‘misogynistic.’ But the two words being strewn about with the most frequency are these: ‘professional’ and ‘prude.’ The people that are vocally objectifying what happened are quick to be on the defensive that they are not prudes, that they can take a joke, etc., but that the material shouldn’t have been allowed at a Professional event. But why do they have to be defensive at all? Is it only okay to be offended so long as you’re not a prude? It seems that these people are apologizing for being themselves and/or for feeling that this was inappropriate for a professional event, whereas the presenter hasn’t apologized at all. To the extent that I hope to be able to be free to do and say what I want to, I also accept that that privilege doesn’t come free of responsibility – especially not in a professional venue.
There are some industries where being involved within the communities means accepting the tribal customs; back when I was in the music industry, for example, the attitudes and expectations for ‘professional’ behaviour were quite different than they were when I was a government contractor. But in a way, the rules at a tech conference aren’t always clear, and that leaves some ambiguity as to what’s considered acceptable. Many of the tech males that I associate with liken themselves to rockstars, and seem to equate that with a juvenile, sexist sort of bent. Tech conferences are billed as being laid-back, cool, and daring – all of the things that tech people aren’t necessarily well-known for being – and as a result, a lot of their insecurity manifests itself in overcompensation and in the men trying a bit too hard to prove that they’re no longer the outcasts, that they can reject and objectify women just like the rockstars do. But a real rockstar doesn’t need to resort to gimmicks and putdowns to prove themselves, unless they have no genuine talent.
I’m disappointed to see that something like this ends up overshadowing all of the positive things that the Flash community does, and all of the great things that were at Flashbelt & that Dave did for the event. Many of my dear friends & colleagues were there and I know that there was so much more to this event than this one presentation. But a professional event either needs to be designated like a treehouse with a ‘no stinky girls allowed!’ banner from the get-go (which would be just as much of a pity as having an all-girl tea party with a ‘no stinky boys allowed!’ one), or the professionals there need to act as, well, professionals.

vombie.com » Technology

Offense and Industry Part II

Offense and Industry