| mez breeze on Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:03:07 +0100 (CET) | 
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
	
	| <nettime> Questions, Not Answers,	Regarding the Post-#PyCon 2013 Fallout | 
 
- To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
- Subject: <nettime> Questions, Not Answers,	Regarding the Post-#PyCon 2013 Fallout
- From: mez breeze <netwurker@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:13:28 +1100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=M5upzDQPHQqMNQXwg7YCZf5dlHS5zGLtco4LC4b0+Pg=; b=iw7g1VGAVCk6QdRA+AfU0XDeitubm1sjai9QrHuceS8s3gOwS+6e/AEF2/r374VMrB wprFBrPtmpO0m0iqWwhcWebVgYMUdXvSvy6Rg5P3+GTALr8WFLEZcvZNTbNEldeK+/+X zYtYSCbM1aKAkIG8ldnldxtUPzBm+UScfHs7RZwDRpbLiyilyV4mkVOBuITV88gESFI9 BTBryZKOBFwS6Xb/JLak9I0+wqucE39URMso6AioAa7V2Vk+LKnwwulLnrKn3qc/Hbxv YVnE6ZgODV2BA7dNZPnmEYdWIjxVd3l7UvM3J8Qrb+S6/eUxjkN6OOKWcqoK+1w55tjo WG5Q==
I’m always curious – as any decent news-hound should be – regarding 
certain aspects of controversial tech-related dramas. I’m especially 
curious about those dramas that play out very publicly and create 
substantial character/brand damage.
So this morning I’ve been intent on writing a long-form post regarding the firing of a PlayHaven employee for making alleged offensive comments at the Python Developer Conference (PyCon 2013) while in earshot of Adria Richards, a SendGrid Employee. Richards tweeted about the incident and complained to PyCon organisers, resulting in Alex Reid and “mr-hank” (the fired PlayHaven employee) being knuckle-rapped over the incident. Subsequently, Richards herself has been fired
 and although initially there was ample conjecture that this “news” may 
have been the output of some elaborate DDoS hack, it now seems more likely to be accurate.
Fortunately, my intentions have now jumped up and poked me firmly in 
my common-sense gland, and in lieu of finishing and posting that 
traditionally crafted article complete with the oily title of “If it 
doesn’t add value to the conversation, then it gets deleted” (a direct quote from Richards herself
 regarding why she’s currently deleting blog comments), I’ve instead 
started crafting the following list of questions as ponder-fodder. The 
list isn’t especially comprehensive and, in the effort of full 
disclosure, it’s undoubtedly laced with my own complicated bias.
Then why do it? Because I’d rather offer readers something that may 
just break those horrible and vitrolic “win-lose” mentality loops that 
plague certain social media/blog commentators regarding such 
controversial issues. I’d also prefer to present an alternative to the 
multitude of closed-ended and exclusionary “facts” and “answers” such as
 those being offered by all and sundry regarding the fallout post-PyCon 
2013:
- Were the comments observed by Richards at PyCon 2013 actively (or 
even latently) sexist, or simply incidences of thoughtless comedic 
material that peppers (and may even attempt to parody) aspects of sexist
 geek culture? Could they also conceivably have been a mixture of both?
- Were these comments misinterpreted – deliberately or unconsciously –
 in order to create an incident that would create ongoing controversy 
and accelerated pageviews?
- If the comments under question had been voiced by two women developers mentioning “big dongles” or “forking” (or shoving socks down their pants), would Richards have complained?
- If the actions Richards undertook regarding the alleged sexist 
comments were performed by a man instead of a woman, might the outcome, 
and corresponding furore, be different?
- Is the male gaze
 in constant operation during events like PyCon, and if yes, how do we 
create a workable solution for its removal? Should we also acknowledge 
and discuss other types of “gazes” (or other power loaded stereotypical 
behaviours embedded within unconscious neurotypical agendas) that might 
be present at such institutionalised events, with associated bias and 
layered prejudice (involving privilege and status) also in play?
- When faced with what they think is offensive or hate-based 
commentary that makes an individual “feel uncomfortable”, how should 
they react? In today’s constantly “on” world where reports of any action
 may be instantaneously broadcast, should an individual’s ability to 
magnify an incident (to the extent where no reasonable or concluding 
course of action can result) be considered prior to any action taken?
- Is the right to refuse to openly engage – or directly communicate with – an individual who you think is displaying offensive behaviour acceptable, especially when this refusal is based on entrenched bias or inequality?
- If you choose to expose those you think are “in the wrong”, should 
you be prepared for a certain level of backlash from those who do not 
view the behaviours as you do?  If this level of backlash becomes 
threatening or vitriolic, how should you respond? How should society at 
large respond?
- How do we ensure that well-meaning discourse isn’t hijacked for the sake of attention grabbing “netbytes”?
- Would decent journalistic input regarding all of these questions actually help?
[Originally posted at GeekGirl Oz]
-- 
| http://mezbreeze.com/ 
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze 
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org