Thread: Things to notice (was Re: Code of Conduct: Is it time?, broken thread I hope)

Someone (never mind who, this isn't intended to be a blame-game
message) wrote:

> Am I, as a mere male […]  :-)

Even with the smiley, _this_ is the sort of thing that causes
discussions to wander into hopeless weeds from which projects cannot
emerge.  I _know_ it is tempting to make this kind of remark.  But
it's not cool, it doesn't help, and it is exactly the sort of thing
that makes some people think CoCs are needed in the first place.

Suppose you were an uncertain young woman from a culture where men
have legal authority over you.  Suppose the only interaction with
programming peers you get is online.  (Yes, I know of at least one
such case personally.)  This sort of sarcastic remark, smiley or no,
causes you a new uncertainty.

Just be sensitive to the fact that the Internet is bigger than your
world, however big it is, and things will be better.  I am not a big
believer in written-down rules: I think mostly they're a fetishizing
of constitutional arrangements like those of the US and Canada (which
mostly don't work for those who are not already enfranchised).  But we
can do something about that by thinking about that possibility much
more than we can do something about it by writing down rules.

Still, the exercise of writing down rules may help to notice things
one wouldn't say to a friend.  And I hope we're all friends here.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca

On 11/01/16 15:00, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Someone (never mind who, this isn't intended to be a blame-game
> message) wrote:
>
>> Am I, as a mere male […]  :-)
It was me.

The phrase "Mere Male" was title of a column I read in NZ Women's Weekly
that my mother bought when I was a teenager.

 >>> An an aside: the use of '[...]' is something I introduced into
usenet about 1991, previously people used '[ omitted ]'  - when I was at
the Victoria University of Wellington (NZ) <<<

The rest of the sentience you omitted, was inspired by a woman
complaining that when she turned up to one feminist meeting, her baby
was removed when some other women found it was male.

> Even with the smiley, _this_ is the sort of thing that causes
> discussions to wander into hopeless weeds from which projects cannot
> emerge.  I _know_ it is tempting to make this kind of remark.  But
> it's not cool, it doesn't help, and it is exactly the sort of thing
> that makes some people think CoCs are needed in the first place.
Your reply is exactly why a Coc is dangerous.  Almost anything people
say, can be interpreted by someone as either offensive and/or inappropriate!

>
> Suppose you were an uncertain young woman from a culture where men
> have legal authority over you.  Suppose the only interaction with
> programming peers you get is online.  (Yes, I know of at least one
> such case personally.)  This sort of sarcastic remark, smiley or no,
> causes you a new uncertainty.
It was not intended to be sarcastic.

Note that even between England and the USA there is a culture gap. For
example: British comedians found lots of Americans could not understand
sarcasm, hence the habit of saying 'Not!' after a positive statement and
a short pause.

>
> Just be sensitive to the fact that the Internet is bigger than your
> world, however big it is, and things will be better.
My wife is Chinese, I lived in Sierra Leone for a couple of years,
Ireland for about 4 years.  I was born in England, live in New Zealand,
have visited several other countries including Australia & the USA.  I
have also considered aspects of culture (both human & alien) relating to
living on other planets, not all orbiting our star.  So my world view
might be bigger than yours!

Before I started using the Internet & email I had read that electronic
communication does not have a non-verbal component.  I've been using the
Internet for 25 years - I found within a year that there is considerable
non-verbal aspects to communication.  However, when you see someone
face-to-face, you can tell their mood.  So there are some things I might
say to someone's face, that I would not put in an email as I don't know
their state of mind when they come to read it - that is quite apart from
wondering what the various spy agencies will make of my communication.


> I am not a big
> believer in written-down rules: I think mostly they're a fetishizing
> of constitutional arrangements like those of the US and Canada (which
> mostly don't work for those who are not already enfranchised).  But we
> can do something about that by thinking about that possibility much
> more than we can do something about it by writing down rules.
Try defining a car that includes everything that you consider a car, and
excludes everything that doesn't.  If you do the exercise properly, you
will find it impossible, no matter how much nor how carefully you
write!  Now most people would agree what a car is (For the Americans use
'automobile'), yet trying to define it rigorously is simply not feasible.
>
> Still, the exercise of writing down rules may help to notice things
> one wouldn't say to a friend.  And I hope we're all friends here.
I had a boss who was a Maori who was (& is still) a great friend, of
whom I have considerable respect.  There are things I said to him that
are definitely not PC, that he took in the intended spirit, that would
be inappropriate to say in public.  I was very careful not to be in that
mode too often, as it would be somewhat wearing.  A couple of years
later he was quite happy to hire me for another project.

It is the perceived intention of what one says that is important, not
what one actually says!  For another example, you can be very rude
simply by being inappropriately polite.

I've often called my best friend a bastard - but due to context, he took
as a compliment.

>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:10:23PM +1300, Gavin Flower wrote:

> The phrase "Mere Male" was title of a column I read in NZ Women's Weekly
> that my mother bought when I was a teenager.

That's nice.  I still found it offensive enough in the context to
think it worthy of note.  (I'm not really one for umbrage-taking, but
given the topic I thought it worth calling out.)

> Note that even between England and the USA there is a culture gap.

Indeed, between Canada and the US there's one, too (a gap that I
appreciate even more now that I am marooned in New Hampshire).  But I
think you're missing my point, which is that when one is working on
the Internet with an unknown selection of people from widely-differing
cultures, one needs to be even more sensitive than usual to the
possibility of creating a chilly environment.  I seem to recall that
Josh suggested at the start of this discussion that the lack of a CoC
discourages some class of participants.  One might wonder whether that
is the class one wants, and that decision is certainly past my pay
grade.  All I was trying to note was that the current conversation
about this topic itself may create the very kind of environment people
are worried about.

> So my world view might be bigger than yours!

Indeed, it might.  And I don't think I was suggesting it was bigger or
smaller; there's a reason I elided the attribution, and the "you" in
what I wrote was intended in the generic sense.  I apologise in case
that wasn't clear.

> It is the perceived intention of what one says that is important, not what
> one actually says!

I think that is perhaps a false dichotomy.  But I also think I have
said enough on this topic, so I shall stop now.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca