She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed.
If the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis!" then the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it. That's all it does by itself.
All that about being offended and excluded and threatened, that is all baggage that she brought with her into that situation. She imagines that the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis ...and reminds me that we must continue to oppress all women muhahaha!"
That's her imagination. She made that part up. Hank didn't say or imply or even think anything remotely like that. And it doesn't matter if other people share her delusion - any more than it would matter if this was a religious issue and she was claiming someone had committed blasphemy. It doesn't matter that other people share the delusion that god is real.
> She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed.
Unfortunately that isn't how she felt. Her feelings should matter to us just as Hank's feelings matter.
> the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it.
No one is arguing that the joke is not innocuous, or that the joke is somehow sinister. I've been in Hank's shoes, I've made stupid jokes about sex.
I'm not arguing that Hank deserved any retribution for making that joke. He seems like a really nice guy. It was horrible what happened to him.
I'm arguing that there is a problem because someone doesn't feel safe when an innocuous joke is made. And a lack of diversity is the root of this problem.
Unfortunately when this topic comes up here we all question Adria's motives, we accuse her and call her delusional. We deny her feelings, and in doing so we exclude her and other women. We make the situation worse.
We should be trying to understand how she came to do something so rash and question the culture and environment that brought this horrible situation about.
We should give Adria the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is not a monster, then we will see where the real problem lies.
> We deny her feelings, and in doing so we exclude her and other women.
Now that comment is sexist, because you deny men the right to have the same feelings. It's easy to pick nits, especially in those fields.
I don't think that anybody denies Adria's right to feel offended, at least not really. Feelings are irrational, that's why we don't get to fully explain them logically (quite convenient). Actions, on the other hand, should be rational, and we are often judged by their rationality.
We can only speculate how Adria felt, and it doesn't really matter. Her actions and words are what got her into trouble. When compared to the comments she overheard on the conference, it is not just out of proportion, but completely out of direction as well.
Perhaps the worst part is that this kind of attitude actually _hurts_ tolerance instead of improving it. I'd love to have a productive black Jewish female on my team. I'd hate to have someone obsessing about racism, sexism and hurt feelings, regardless of their race and gender.
Reminded of a quote that resonates with me, in general:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what?"
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”
> Unfortunately that isn't how she felt. Her feelings should matter to us just as Hank's feelings matter.
It was unreasonable for her to feel that way and even the author of the article acknowledged that.
She can feel however she wants, but she is responsible for herself, no one else is. It is not Hanks' responsibility to make sure she isn't offended by a simple joke. It may have been inappropriate, but that's not the same thing.
Well, to me her feeling are irrelevant. She could've have been feeling fear, anger or may even enjoyed the joke and tried to share it and it's creator.
All this happened because of what she _did_. And doing is different of feeling. You don't choose your feelings, but you choose your actions.
So ... a man's behavior made her feel a certain way, such that she bears no responsibility for her reactions and their consequences?
What is felt or what can be said is dependent on the circumstances of your birth, chromosomes, and DNA?
Take your argument and spin it, and you're allowing that women are responsible for men's actions based on how the women act and behave.
Or you can allow the one and deny the other. That's a hell of a double standard.
My read, from the original airing of this, and from Ron Johnson's interviews here, is that Adria Richards absolutely wasn't suited for her job. She's overtly racist and sexist, ascribing people traits, or passing judgement on what they can or cannot do or say, based simply on race and gender.
She took what was, at the very worst, a slightly immature situation, and made it far, far worse. And continues to.
I've seen plenty of behavior from men (or boys) that makes me cringe. I've called it out at times. I've also seen (or received) it from women. And, for that matter, men. Truth is we're sexual creatures, and the boundaries between professional and personal do get crossed. Failure to recognize that (and behave accordingly) is a problem.
I've also had my own issues with behavior of others from time to time. Sometimes I'll comment, but if I'm at at a structured event that doesn't work (and I've met plenty of people of various stripes and persuasions who seem dead-set on finding an argument), I'll find someone who can intermediate -- an arbitrator frequently does blunt the emotions of to principle antagonists.
Could there be reasons for Adria's behavior in her own personal history? I'm not a psych professional, but I've had my own personal experiences (some extremely painful, damaging, and expensive) and done a fair bit of reading (including of psych texts and manuals). Seems valid to me to conclude that it very well might. And that if she does in fact have a history of such behavior, she'd do well to receive some sort of assessment and therapy for it. And I wish that she lived in a society which made such treatment far more accessible. Her behavior certainly has interfered with her professional and personal relationships, from the evidence I've seen.
But people own their own responses and feelings. An irrational or aberrant response is just that: irrational and aberrant. A person with a mortal fear of snakes shouldn't work in a reptile exhibit, a pyromaniac shouldn't work at a firehouse. And a woman who's constitutionally hostile to white men should probably find herself a position where she's not called on to deal with them diplomatically and spread corporate good-will.
Someone whose response to everyday situations gets other people hurt, or fired, or threatened, isn't behaving normally. Adria's response in this regard is no more valid than the road-raging executive, the raving street person who attacks someone for no reason, the child who throws a tantrum, or the jilted lover who goes into a screaming rage encountering an ex on the street.
Was she rightly fired? Absolutely. Ideally she wouldn't have been hired for the position in the first place.
The threats she's received since? Uncalled for.
Her failure to own her own actions and recognize her error? Inexcusable.
Oh, and the answer to men and their behavior around women dressing or acting provocatively? That's something the men own.
She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed.
If the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis!" then the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it. That's all it does by itself.
All that about being offended and excluded and threatened, that is all baggage that she brought with her into that situation. She imagines that the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis ...and reminds me that we must continue to oppress all women muhahaha!"
That's her imagination. She made that part up. Hank didn't say or imply or even think anything remotely like that. And it doesn't matter if other people share her delusion - any more than it would matter if this was a religious issue and she was claiming someone had committed blasphemy. It doesn't matter that other people share the delusion that god is real.