![]() |
||
![]() |
||
|
Start »» This is a website about me. I am just this girl, who works on open source web based education stuff, and drinks too much. I write mundane crap about things I do. If you're interested in things about me in list format, go here. You can also send me email, or subscribe to my rss feed. My new gpg key id is 0xA110DDD2, and my old (not quite yet deprecated) gpg key id is 0xA30EC22B I have stuff elsewhere, you can find a handy aggregate at mjollnir.org This blog is syndicated on: The image you see above you rotates from a pool. Since these are all photos of me, none of them were taken by me. (Except the silhouette of me standing in front of a window with a kitten on my shoulder. That one is clearly me taking a photo of myself in the mirror) Credit goes out to the people who took them. Feel free to reload the page and look at random images until you run out or get sick of it. I give thumbs up to: vex for hosting my sorry ass, lurbs for making mail go, and serendipity for writing such fine blog software and allowing me to hack it to pieces. Show tagged entriesapple isync aro valley beach books catalyst cats christmas coffee debconf debian diesel sweeties dorothy parker dreaming drinking election2005 elgg emacs exploding dog family film flikr girl git google gpg haiku home homesick internet irc jo kittens lazyweb lca2007 lessons liip linux linuxchix london mahara matterhorn meme merging miscellany mischief bad group mojo moodle moodlemoot movies music mysql nanowrimo newzealand nokia 6230i open source oscon phoenix foundation php piano pixies ponies postgres procmail rnzb s9y scm sf07 sleeping sun superhappydevhouse tattoo tour07 travel vim webstock weekend wellington words xkcd
Quicksearch |
Sunday, August 9. 2009on action and reactionTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Victim blaming is stating ways the victim could have behaved differently and thus avoided the incident or made it not a problem.
It doesn't have to be rudely phrased, it's often very polite and well intentioned. Sure, at any rate I don't think this particular comment seeks to "avoid the incident" or "make it not a problem" at all, it's pointing out that both parties have a responsibility.
Say for example, I made a joke about how much I hate ponies, and your pony had just died. You might be offended, but I would not have done anything to cause offense directly. Rather than you simply being offended and me being the offender at fault (because we can never blame the victim), isn't it also your responsibility to evaluate why it caused offense and react accordingly? This is a trite example, and I'm not meaning to downplay what happened with this couch-db thing. I'm simply saying that in some cases where offense happens, the responsibility should be on both parties to own it. I wouldn't say "i hate ponies" in front of someone whom i knew had just lost their pony.
but, in the case of unintentional offense - lets take a real world example: Richard Stallman stands up in front of a large audience, and declares that programmers who haven't used emacs are like women who are virgins and need their virginity forcibly removed. It's clear he didn't mean to offend (and i'll resort to ad hominien and say you gotta be rather screwed in the head to think that was an okay statement in that situation) - it doesn't matter what he intended. Those who felt either insulted, or even afraid by being in a room where the lauded speaker advocated forcibly removing virginity from women - they don't need to change. They're not the problem. Stallman said something incredibly wrong and he needs to apologise, not for causing for offense, but to apologise for saying something incredibly wrong. Brenda I think you and I are picking issues at opposite ends of the scale to focus on, which points to the fact that we have different perspectives.
I totally agree with you about Stallman and I don't think anyone in the audience "needs to change" in that specific case. However, most of the instances I see every day of "sexism" are things that I totally don't think are worth getting fired up over. This comes back to picking battles, because I think if you get fired up every time someone says something minor, then you're risking the little boy who cried wolf situation, because then everyone who sees you get upset over every comment that could possibly be considered sexist, won't actually listen when the Stallmans of this world say something actually really stupid. There's also a fine difference between seeing sexism everywhere, and looking for it. Personally, I want to be a generally happy person, and I can't fight every single battle. I would rather focus on the big ones, and when something small happens, take a breath and count to ten and either react in a way that is likely to make a difference, or just let it go. Final disclaimer: My original blog post wasn't about the specific case of the couch-db incident. Personally I don't find it offensive, just fucking idiotic, but I definitely don't think anyone who reacted to it "should change" either. Most of the reactions I've seen have been well written, reasonable attempts to explain why it was so idiotic and offensive. At any rate, this blog post was about the more general case I see all the time of "sexist! sexist" being called as a reaction to many things of varying degrees of sexism, which I perosnally consider counterproductive. I don't think we disagree so greatly.
I don't have a great problem with the nudity in the the couch-db example, but do agree it was idiotic to show such things in that setting. The place where the real ugliness rears it's head, is in the pure vileness directed at those who were brave enough to admit they didn't like it. That's where the worst of the worst come out of the woodwork of our communities. Yeah, we're vehemently agreeing maybe. I guess maybe it's never ok to say, "you're overreacting" directly, although I think sometimes people are. I know that when I get told, "you're overreacting" I see red. That makes me SO angry.
However, sometimes someone has said to me (not in the heat of the moment but afterwards), "When we talk about xyz sometimes I think you get really upset and take it personally and can't have a serious conversation about it anymore, why is that?" that I have to realise I'm coming to whatever conversation with baggage, and that's what is driving my reaction, rather than necessarily the specific instance of what we're talking about. That's the kind of thing where I personally want to change and I think in the instance of discussing sexism, would be helpful to change, because overreacting/reacting badly/etc alienates people who might otherwise be on our side. an example of more "everyday" sexism, something that happened to me today:
I turned up at a meeting with a male colleague. Right now i'm 22 weeks pregnant and it's very obvious. Someone said "oh, and this must be your wife" to my male colleague. What a strange assumption! I can't work out why someone would assume, in a work context, that i'm "here with my husband" other than some theory that pregnant woman hanging out with a man must be married. (and Who brings their wife to work meetings?) I'm not upset in the slightest, just amused and bewildered. Would love to find another possible reason for such an assumption. I suspect it was a textbook "Here with my boyfriend" http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Here_with_my_boyfriend I think part of the problem is women's experience with the sliding scale. Essentially, no matter how you respond/feel there will be someone who has a suggestion about how you could do it a little bit better.
If you're upset and powerless, someone will say lose the baggage, take hold of your power. If you are confident but angry, someone will say "more flies with honey". If you are confident and neutral, someone will still say "more flies with honey". If you are confident and kind, someone will probably still say "more flies with honey" and someone else will use your example to put down another woman and someone else again will start emailing you privately for help with his girlfriend. So it becomes hard to engage with any argument along the lines of "change yourself" because if you do, there will be one more person at your new destination saying you need to change yourself again. You can never be nice enough, calm enough, strong enough, rational enough and smart enough that you won't get pretty much the same amount of criticism saying you aren't allowed/supposed to/healthy enough to complain yet, you're being too much of a baby about it. And even genuine well-meaning people saying this (as opposed to concern trolls) are part of this problem. Also, in this specific debate, a lot of people talking have already taking part in quite angry debates where they've argued with more extreme versions of "change yourself", for example, the man over on the O'Reilly Radar who argued that "you slept with someone, that's why you got that patch committed" should be patiently helped through his confusion with a woman careful reciting her resume in response to his reasonable confusion about her qualifications. This last is probably insoluble. Once the wide range of "change yourself" arguments have started up, I don't know how a new one can avoid coming across as part of that chorus. Mary, I'm sure you're right about the sliding scale. I don't think that's specific to sexism though.
Regarding your point about sounding like part of the chorus - I guess that amplifies my point about baggage. If anyone reads what I write and reacts to it angrily or whatever, because they're so fucking sick of being told to change, rather than because they're actually reacting to what I have to say, then yes, they're being human ;) but also exactly playing out the sort of thing I'm talking about. I am definitely guilty of this as much as the next person, I can think of plenty of examples of when I've been upset about something and reacted badly and then later had to say, "I'm really sorry I overreacted, it's just that I have xyz baggage and it's not really your fault". I'm just trying to consciously change it. Anyway, none of what I'm writing about is specific to sexism, women, IT, opensource. It's a human condition that people miscommunicate, misunderstand eachother, and when that happens, you can either assume the worst and react, or you can take time to think about it and wonder why you're reacting that way and own your reaction. Martin pointed me to this http://madduck.net/blog/2006.11.06:madduck-s-law-of-misconstruction/ the other day and I don't agree with that either - if you think that no matter what you say or how careful you are someone will be offended, then that's just giving up as well. I just think that both sides are responsible in some cases. And yes, I think there's always room for personal improvement for everyone and every single person should hold themselves accountable, and to a high standard, and try and analyse themselves, be self aware, and try and improve on things they find wanting. Not just women and not just women who have been the victims of an offensive statement :) Mary Gardiner has another angle on offense here:
http://puzzling.org/writing/musings/taboo |
|
