Let's put away the forks and dongles and talk this over like civilized people.
An opening note: This blog entry isn't directly related to art or gaming, but I think someone needs to take a stand for the middle ground, and I have this soapbox here. Apologies to many of you who didn't come here to read this stuff. Feel free to ignore it as you see fit.
I'm sure some people reading this are already aware of the unfortunate incident that occurred at PyCon recently, wherein two men sitting in an audience (at the keynote, I believe) were making some crude innuendos involving dongles and forking, and a woman in front of them tweeted their picture publicly to her numerous followers in order to get the attention of the PyCon staff. The tweet ultimately cost one of the men (edit: and now apparently the woman as well) their jobs, and depending on who you ask, this either proves that men are the true victims of universal oppression in our society and that feminism is completely and entirely wrong in all aspects, or the guy had it coming because in making childish, PG-rated dongle jokes he somehow now bears all of the responsibility for all of the misogyny to ever take place at a developer conference. Rumors that both men were fired (only one was) or that they were ejected from the conference (they left voluntarily) are false.
This whole thing would probably have blown over, had it not come to light later on in the week that one of the men was fired over this incident. This strikes me as a clear overreaction on the part of his employer (I'm going to be using this word overreaction a lot in this article because it's the crux of the problem. Say it with me. Overreaction.), and it's unlikely that the man's termination was the intent of the woman who tweeted the photograph.
So where does the mob mentality fit into all this? Well, as I see it, we're actually dealing with two mobs here. One is the mob of obnoxious jerkwads who pop out of the woodwork to harass women with foul language, DOS attacks, and death threats every time they voice even the slightest objection the way they're treated in the tech world. The other mob is a bit quieter and more professional, acting behind the scenes to make sure that someone pays in blood for the poor way women in tech are treated, even if the person in question wasn't actually being a misogynist at all (Think about it: would this man's employer really have fired him without prompting? Or do you suppose that multiple people looked him up and emailed or called demanding that they fire him over the relatively minor offense of making some crude jokes with a friend during a keynote?).
There's something here that a lot of people don't consider. If you take part in an internet mob, the anonymity and lack of personal consequences don't absolve you of your personal responsibility for your actions. If you called this woman demeaning names, you know who you are. If you participated in the DDOS on her website, you know who you are. If you called the employer of a man with a wife and three kids to get him fired over a silly, minor incident, you know who you are. If you're exerting social pressure on the people at the forefront of your movement to not back down from what they said when something has clearly gotten out of hand, you know who you are. What you are doing is acting as the judge, jury, and executioner in an incident where all you have to go on is a tiny bit of hearsay. The reaction to this incident by the PyCon staff was calm and measured. They discussed the incident privately with the people involved, and those people apologized. The story ought to have ended there, but as many people are well aware, it didn't.
When you join a massive, anonymous online overreaction to a perceived slight, not only do will you end up punishing the people involved vastly out of proportion with whatever it is they've done, you'll also end up damaging the credibility of your own cause. For instance, you aren't exactly going to dispel the notion that there's rampant misogyny in the tech world by bombarding a woman (who, by the way, has the guts to sign her name to what she says, even if you don't agree with it) with filth and death threats. Similarly, getting a man fired for making dongle jokes is a scare tactic, and people are legitimately worried now that making the tiniest little joke at a conference may result in pressure that gets them fired.
Calm down for a moment, whichever side of this whole thing you happen to be on, and consider the following: The fact that the tech world has issues with rampant misogyny and the fact that this particular incident was a vast overreaction to a minor annoyance (people making crude but not misogynistic jokes during a keynote) are not mutually exclusive. Both of these things are completely true. When you deny either of these things, you make yourself look ridiculous, and the unfortunate human tendency is to react strongly to whatever opinion we happen to read first, which means that ultimately you're just causing the entire environment to become even less reasonable and more polarized, which is an overreaction that solves absolutely nothing.
But wait, there's more. Let's say you dismiss real instances of misogyny by claiming that the person being made to feel uncomfortable is overreacting. You've now made it harder for someone reasonable to look at an instance like this and say (publicly) that this is a real case of overreaction. It's the first thing that comes out whenever a woman expresses that she's tired of being constantly bombarded with sandwich jokes. Sure, individually "make me a sandwich" is just a joke, but when you're bombarded with it day after day by people who think they're being clever, it creates an environment that's incredibly hostile. (Incidentally, "make me a sandwich" is sexist, whereas "I'd fork his repo" is sexual, and these are two completely different things.) Do I believe everyone who has ever said "make me a sandwich" deserves to be fired? No. At least, not as long as they're willing to change their behavior once they're aware of how old, tired, and degrading it gets. Most people are reasonable enough to stop. Those of you who aren't, well, I have just as much sympathy for you as you have for others -- that is, none at all.
As a final note, while the mobs caused by far the most damage in this situation, the individuals involved (with the exception of the PyCon staff) don't exactly come out of this looking rosy either.
To the guy making crude comments during a keynote: She took a picture of you and tweeted it all over because you were being annoying. You were talking during someone's speech, and other people likely wanted to hear. I don't think the content of what you said is really a major issue here; I've made my share of childish jokes and I'll likely continue to do so. But what you did is akin to talking at a movie theater, and you should know better. Also, your claim that "I'd fork his repo" has absolutely no sexual connotation is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. Regardless, you didn't deserve to be publicly shamed on the internet or terminated from your job.
To the woman who tweeted the picture: You sent your own mob after this guy. While I highly doubt that it was your intention to get him fired, you should have anticipated that the possibility was there. While the people who actually pressed to get him fired (as well as the stupid employer who caved to the pressure) are the ones at fault, you should understand as a journalist and a blogger that you have a responsibility to be careful with the personal information that you disseminate to the public. Furthermore, in your response to the incident, you know full well that you should have apologized for what you did, but you also know that the worst of your mob would consider that a betrayal of their principals, so you stuck to your guns and defended your own lack of professionalism and foresight with trumped up statements about how those guys were shattering some little girl's dream and how you're apparently Joan of Arc. You also claimed that you felt too threatened to confront them directly, or even report them to the convention staff like a responsible person. I find that a bit hard to believe, since you pointed out in the same blog entry that you actively confronted someone earlier for being crude and creepy. Regardless, you did not deserve to be attacked by an internet mob, or to be terminated from your job.
In conclusion: Nobody needed or deserved to get harassed or fired over this. Everything that needed to be done was taken care of in a professional manner by the PyCon staff, and if you participated in harassing or otherwise pushing to get either of the involved parties fired, you are part of the problem.
I'll step off my soapbox for now. Peace out.
Bart
P.S. Note that this article contains no links or names. This is deliberate on my part; I want people to stop taking part in mobs, not add to them.
P.P.S. Since this is generally off topic for OGA, please keep the discussion here and out of the IRC channel.
Comments
in all fairness we dont know if the peoplw who was fired was in trouble for other stuff or whatnot, we love fire and pitchforks on the interwebs
Nice speach Bart. I agree with everything that was said.
Another similar article: Adria Richards, Pycon, and How We All Lost
Let's not go to the internet. It is a silly place.
I like your summary of the situation. Good article, Bart! (good Barticle?)
zombies and sheep
Well put, Bart. It's sad that this article had to be written, but I'm glad you did.
@Deozaan:
Good article. Interestingly, the comments have examples of both of the mob mentalities I was talking about.
I agree.
On anonymity - on the one hand, I agree there is the point that it allows people to be more vicious without having to worry. But I think anonymity is a good thing too, and this episode shows that aspect also: I don't want any risk of my employer being associated with any comments I make, or to be fired because people find out where I work. (I'm guessing this firing happened in states with at-will employment, something I disagree with...)
I think it's a good thing to have some rules about sexual talk in that kind of conference. Perhaps there should be some rules about taking photos of people without their consent...
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4582
:p
I applaud this post.
One thing I do have to say is frankly I can understand where the companies are comming from that fired the people, they just cant have an employee that is hurting the company on staff. That said I dont think it is -right- its just purely a matter of what other real choice do they have.
The part I find fascinating about all this, the issue, not just your post- is I often see blindness to the heated debate happening about gender rights, roles and the nature of equality. It’s as if someone didn't know there was an abortion or religion debate. You step into this debate; you're going to get immense flak.
Let me outline the main sides:
1- Radfems believe that there is a prevalent social construct in the western world, called Patriarchy, that effectively suppresses all women everywhere- due primarily to misogyny (hatred of women). And they define misogynistic speech broadly- as essential anything that ever offends a single women- because it promotes an ‘unsafe’ atmosphere. What a joke or opinion says about women is not important to feminists. Logic is something like:
Men make statement or a joke.
This offends a woman or multiple women.
This drives women away. (‘controls’)
This creates male only spaces. (Like segregated golf courses)
If it doesn’t offend a woman, it won’t create a male only space; if it does, it will. Essentially, Anita feeling offended is sufficient evidence of misogyny and repression.
Furthermore, standing up to (and shutting down) any of the tiniest misogynistic/offensive speech is a part of a worldwide crusade against Patriarchy and to liberate women.
Joan of Arc is a very apt view of how they see themselves.
2- MRA's on the other hand- see the suppression of women's rights in the past as due to the exact opposite repressive over-protective love: a "Benevolent Sexism." E.g. the same men and WOMEN who would have found a women working outside of the home to be improper (like in a factory) are exactly the same people who would shame you, or physically harm you(a slap or punch in the face) for making a sexual joke around a woman. These men and women would say: when a woman enters the room you stand up and tip your cap, when a ship sinks you give your lifeboat seat up for a women, and you don’t let women work 16 to 20 hour shifts in iron foundries. The woman’s rights movement under this view- is not a cultural phenomenon at all, but simply that society, and in particular workplaces have become easy and safe enough for benevolent sexists to allow women more freedom.
From an MRA view:
The Middle East dresses women in hijabs not because of misogynist hatred of women or their bodies, but an insane obsession to protect them from rape. Essentially to protect them from ‘objectification’ and misogyny.
If someone talks about gender equality or misogyny in the tech field, but they don’t seem to care about the lack of women coal mining - then they don’t care about equality, they care about protecting women over men.
If you don’t want people to say, “make me a sandwich,” but you don’t really care that 99% of workplace deaths are male- then you don’t care about gender equality, you care about protecting women over men.
So from an MRA view, a lot of talk about 'misogyny' is not only sexist to women (let’s wrap women in pink bubble wrap) White Knight prattle, but also fuel for the feminist agenda which casts women in perpetual victimhood to constantly milk more economic, legal, and parental rights. MRA’s want people to stop babying women- and instead encourage them to put on their ‘big girl pants’ and act like adults. To some MRAs defending women too stronger from misogynistic speech is counterproductive, hurtful to men's rights and women's agency, sexist to both, and when including jokes- very offensive to those who value comedy and free speech.
I’ve way over simplified both sides, and the debate goes much deeper, issues like how feminists tend to want equality of results where MRAs tend to want an ‘equal playing field.’ But what’s important to understand, this is much more than mob mentality- this is a serious and heated ideological debate. Calling it ‘mob mentality’ is insulting to both sides. Mob mentality is a word we use when theres lots of people acting in a way we don't agree with and don't understand. If you think people are mindlessly following one side or the other without thinking about it- then you’re completely ignorant- these are issues people obsess over.
These are issues people murder each other over.
These are issues people kill themselves over (including dousing themselves with gasoline and self-immolating).
Again, I’m not saying two job losses is good, or this wasn’t a terrible overreaction. However, writing a post saying essential- ‘Hey guys calm down’ is a bit like telling the Nazis and Soviets or Israelis and Palestinians to just ‘get along.’ Okay the last examles were too extreme, but you do have two large groups of people that don’t agree on a bunch of serious issues.
If anything there needs to be an even wider and more public debate.
So I'm going to skip right to the part where you twist my words around. :)
I’ve way over simplified both sides, and the debate goes much deeper, issues like how feminists tend to want equality of results where MRAs tend to want an ‘equal playing field.’ But what’s important to understand, this is much more than mob mentality- this is a serious and heated ideological debate. Calling it ‘mob mentality’ is insulting to both sides. Mob mentality is a word we use when theres lots of people acting in a way we don't agree with and don't understand. If you think people are mindlessly following one side or the other without thinking about it- then you’re completely ignorant- these are issues people obsess over.
I'm participating in this debate myself, so clearly I don't think that being part of the debate means that you're taking part in a mob. The "mob" are the people who act anonymously and aren't able to be civil. The threats and name calling against Adria aren't debate, they're just tactics used to silence people. Likewise, calling PlayHaven to get the guys fired isn't taking part in the debate either. It's just overreacting. While I disagree with some of what you're saying, I certainly wouldn't claim that you're part of a mob either. You're not threatening me or trying to shut me up; you're just voicing your disagreement.
Also note that I'm quite familiar with both radical feminism and mens' rights advocacy. There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening.
Also, I'm guessing from the difference in the way you presented the sides that you consider yourself an MRA. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be happy to engage you in civil debate about that, but if we're going to do that I'd rather choose a different venue than OGA.
>>The threats and name calling against Adria aren't debate, they're just tactics used to silence people.
Very true. I guess what I’m saying is more- when you have such an already nasty and heated debate, you not going to get a nice calm response from the internet- but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an underlying issue. Yeah, I admit I’m wayyyy more on the MRA side- but I’m just trying to show how these are two very different ideologies. You can’t have a call of moderation, of the middle ground, when you have a ton of people who don’t believe in a middle ground. And it’s an arms race- her picture got him fired, it worked; their DDOS and complaints got her fired. As soon as one side stops- the other gains enormous political and economic power. Yeah it makes each side look a little nutty, but nutty people get stuff done. I'm a bit glad it happened, not in the sense getting two people fired and name calling is productive, but it shines some light on the debate. Where does one person's rights end and another begin?
>>There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening.
Of course- http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/x4vop/this_needs_to_stop_now/
If you seriously believe that the academically stratified femenism is less monolithic than the chaotic mess of opinions of MRAs, where people argue and disagree with each other on internet forums… well, actually that makes me kinda jealous. One of the main reason why I’m annoyed with MRAs- is because they never stop arguing with each other. I’ve never read one feminist attack more radical feminists, but I’m sure it happens all the time... but I don't really care. I want to know which one is right and which one is wrong on each issue.
I still think I wasn't quite clear.
I don't consider having even what I would call a radical opinion to be part of a mob mentality. I certainly would not claim that if you're not in the middle ground, you're part of a mob. What I was getting at as far as standing up for the middle ground is the fact that most of the time, the middle ground tends to keep quiet. They shake their heads and facepalm or whatever and then go back about their business. There are plenty of very civil people on both sides of this debate, even the radical parts, and I don't consider them to be part of a mob either.
As for nutty people getting stuff done, I'm not entirely sure that's the case. Take instances of where people have been shouted and threatened into closing down their blogs. Generally, this does two things: a) it proves them right, and b) it makes them into a martyr. Even if you could care less about the actual people on the other side of the debate, acting like a mob is detrimental to your own side. (And as I said, I'm not accusing either radical feminism or MRAs as a group of all being a mob, I'm saying that there are mobs who have these views, and they need to cool down and start acting with some civility.
As for the MRA movement, well, I've seen what their concerns are, and I feel that a lot of them are very valid. I feel the same way about moderate Feminism. The difference, really, is that I've been able to find moderate feminists who I can actualle engage with (that is, who agree that MRA concerns are valid and who don't feel that being an MRA is a Bad Thing), but I have yet to find an avowed MRA who has any opinion about Feminism other than that all feminists are bad. One particular attempt to engage, I talked to a guy for a while and I thought I was making headway, but when I mentioned that not all feminists hold the opinions of radical feminists (and that my wife is a feminist), he linked the Wikipedia article on Stockholm Syndrome, which implies that a) I'm crazy, and b) the person I love the most in the world is holding me hostage. I understand that a lot of this is a backlash against the "fempire" and their ilk, but I feel strongly that people need to be very very careful with the generalizations they make, because they just lead to further polarization and more mobs, and make it impossible for civil people to engage in discussion or meaningful debate. Backlash just leads to more backlash, etc.
On the other hand, part of what I would consider to be a "moderate" viewpoint is that many of the things that both sides bring up are valid issues. We don't have to have a debate about them; we can just address problems as we see them.
"Also note that I'm quite familiar with both radical feminism and mens' rights advocacy. There are of course moderate and radical MRAs, although while I've met plenty of feminists who categorically decry the views of the radical wing of feminism, I have yet to see a moderate MRA publicly criticize radical MRAs. Perhaps you can point me to an instance of this happening."
Is there such a sub-category as "Radical MRA"? Maybe there is, in which case fair enough (a quick google didn't reveal anything).
I mean, Radical Feminism isn't simply "radical" in the dictionary sense (e.g., "a radical opinion" as you say later), that is "feminists who are more radical", but an established sub-category with distinctive views. The name also presumably comes from wanting a fundamental change in society, rather than simply being extremists. There are also people who identify as radical feminists. So this means we will see other feminists refer to radical feminisms and radical feminists.
Not on either "side" here, just noting that even if there will be people within MRA with more extreme views, that isn't comparable to Radical Feminism within feminism, so we wouldn't necessarily see criticism of them in the same way. Plus a lot of the reason why we see feminists decrying the views of radical feminsts isn't simply because they are more extreme, but because of fundamentally opposed views on issues - e.g., porn, transsexualism. (Although EternalArchon's response suggests there's plenty of MRA in-fighting anyway - I guess as it's not as large or as well known a group, there's less publicity about it. I guess Judean People's Front applies everywhere:))
I joined to comment. This is near and dear to my own heart because I have been subjected to mob attacks in the past. As a result I was assaulted, tortured, assaulted, crippled and tortured again. I have had people beating on my door screaming they were going to kill me. All over lies, things blown out of proportion and a witch hunt. I spent the next 4.5 years in a wheelchair, I started walking again Dec 30th, 2012.
Our society desparately needs a socially acceptable boundary declaration. Could be as simple as, "you're in my bubble" or something similar. We don't have an easy warning system. My ideal resolution isn't to have this stop at the PyCon officials, but rather she should have turned around and said, "You're in my bubble." or "Please stop being rude." This of course isn't going to happen until #1 it is socially acceptable to say this (it currently isn't) and #2 people actually alter their behavior based on polite requests. I literally had to be dragged off of public transit because some black woman thought it was her right to yell about nothing at the top of her voice. I had seizures. Ambulance came. I had made 2 polite requests and moved to the other side of the train, but she increased her volume at my requests and again when I moved away. We believe it is our right as citizens of the United States to cause harm to other people as long as our actions are defensible. This woman (upon reading articles) appears to have the same mentality. I would happily DDOS her site if I had the means and I could get away with it as many others have done. Why not? It causes her harm right? I'm collectively poking and prodding the crowd here because I'm attempting to uncover the core issue.
The internet is more wild than the "Wild West" ever was. The world is changing too rapidly for us to assimilate those changes into society. While /b/ may be the cutting edge of social irresponsibility they eventually became socially responsible (care package to Egypt). Society at large needs to undergo a similar maturing. We need to respect any shed of privacy it possible to retain (because it isn't possible to prevent), we need to act in a form of enlightened self interest rather than selfish exploitation, we need to be held accountable for our actions and to hold *everyone* accountable for theirs. As distasteful as it might be, everyone needs to be punished - so causing harm isn't defensible.
My big brother was being attacked in this order more than often at his job. The tech industry needs to care for consumers like it focuses on sexism. Just because someone of the opposite sex wants a bigger crowd than the average consumer to defend himself/herself is not enough a reason to mob, only makes you more sexist than the person INSTEAD.