As a preface, I fully support both of these changes in language.

That said, I think it's both important to balance the idea that sure,
sometimes people are idiots, with that sexism is a prevalent problem right
now at geek conventions, and that it's more than a 'bad and/or drunk
apples' problem.

This list is imperfect (I know several public incidents that aren't on here
(recent DEFCON years aren't listed, The Amazing Meeting/ElevatorGate and
various other skeptic convention incidents aren't on (possibly by
design))), but it's at least a start, and hopefully a picture that sexism
is an endemic, systematic problem right now in the geek convention world.


PS: I don't know what they are, but I kinda made myself hungry for some
drunk apples right now.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:34 AM, MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
> > Also, I've seen a number of reports over the last few years of women
> > who were harassed at predominately-male tech conferences.  Taken
> > together, they paint a picture of men (particularly drunken men)
> > creating an atmosphere that makes a lot of people feel excluded and
> > worry about being harassed or worse.  So I think a positive
> > statement of values, and the general raising of consciousness of
> > these issues, is a good thing.
> I'm a member of, which helps write library software,
> including Koha - we co-hosted KohaCon12 this summer.  Like all co-ops,
> our core values include equality.  I would like to see an
> anti-harassment policy for code4lib.
> However, I'm saddened that I seem to be the first to object to the
> hand-waving ("number of reports") and prejudice in the above
> paragraph.  The above problems seem more likely to arise from being
> drunk or being idiots than from being men.  Please, let's treat all
> groups with equal respect and reserve our ire for particular members
> when they give us reason to do otherwise.
> The anti-harassment policy should not be developed from a "we need to
> kick men into line" standpoint.  As such, I suggest
> should say "Discriminatory language and imagery (including sexual)"
> rather than leading with a special case of "Sexual".
> I also suggest generalising "religion" to "religious beliefs" to avoid
> predictable attempts to insult some minorities and claim it's allowed
> because they're not formal, organised or state-approved religions.
> Regards,
> --
> MJ Ray (slef), member of, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
> supporter, web and library systems developer.
> In My Opinion Only: see
> Available for hire (including development) at