- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
why is this in open source?
i edited t he title to make the reason more clear. in short: because otherwise i assume you wouldn’t have read/seen this post.
Should I then create here a post about a proprietary software I like because otherwise you wouldn’t have seen it? This post doesn’t talk about any open source software or anything of relation to open source ideology. It talks about organization of conferences, and not of open source conferences, but any kind of conference.
I think this article approaches the issue in a wrong way. It only considers the safety of female speakers, not the listeners. It suggests that the organizers should arrange an escort and somehow be aware of who is comfortable with whom or give an option to openly declare that you are uncomfortable with someone.
Better option for the speakers, if unable to arrange for a company of someone they know well, would be to ask some other speakers they feel comfortable with directly. Organizers could also offer to guide groups unfamiliar with the city to/from the station.
Often having had confrontations with aggressive men at the conferences who disagreed with my views, or thought I wasn’t sympathetic enough to their perspectives.
I’ve only been to small-scale conferences or conferences in particular setting but I can’t imagine anyone being aggressive when confronted with a differing opinion. Perhaps this was a hyperbole.
If you’re a cis man at a conference, please be aware that you are, by default, a threat.
This sounds like a great way to alienate half of the readers.
Of course cis men are a threat, they can’t control their rape impulses.
Pretty sure there should be a /s there.
While there are more known cis male rapists than known rapists with other sexual preference, a supermajority of cis men are not rapist.
Further, being attracted to women that aren’t attracted to you is not a rape impulse, just an unfortunate side effect of being a male mammal with no major predators.
Even if that’s the way you perceive it, expressing this attitude is unlikely to gather you an audience who will listen to your points.
It is also a feeling about being included. Nothing worse than going to a conference and all these little clusters are people are around chatting, and you are stuck knowing no-one. Joining a small group is already a way of just normalising everything.
All men are not threats just like all women probably don’t feel afraid. A lot does depend on whether you know a city or not. I as a man may not feel threatened but it can be because I don’t know a city and its dangers (does not mean I’m actually safe - just an accident waiting to happen). Even in my own city there are places I’m not going to after dark, and some places also not in the light.
A conference needs to be safe for everyone - I’d hate to think that men get left to their own risks just because they are all a threat. What is wrong about offering lifts from the airport to the venue for all speakers if they need it? What is wrong with placing some security / car watchers outside the venue for everyone?
I think we’ve been trolled with this article - it didn’t make a clear point at all, completely unclear about why this is only about conferences for example. Included a lot of buzzwords from the rampant twitter cancel-culture that a lot of us want to get away from. The author even admits having posted it misleadingly so more people would read it. And the trick worked on me, it’s still on top of my feed. Please let’s not do this here.
This is completely unrelated but I really like the font she uses for her section headers.
I’m a CIS man, tall, rather slender. I feel unsafe among men depending on the context. Violence is one if our strong sides. Combine that with a lot of insecurities and a need to front = quick escalation of violence and mischief.
This does not mean I walk around in constant terror, but rather carrying an awareness that people born with penises are statistically the guilty ones and everyone else are their victims.
Sad reality. Wanna fight about it!? (jokes)
so i guess all the downvotes are people who feel uncomfortable having this conversation. like people on denial asking for statistics(that they could look up themselves) as means of trying to create counter arguments. debatelords who still belive in universalism crubling at the sight of another reality. rationals idealize being able to change their minds, but in reality they are the ones who struggle the most with it. for the rationality that should protect them from bs is hard as an iron shell.
anyway if you spend more time denying the existence of the problem instead of tyring to solving it you are part of the problem :) and that’s a good thing. because it means you can start by challenging yourself and changing yourself to improve overall conditions.
Who is afraid buy a dog, cctv pushing topic i guess
Hmm… I know people will interpret this as victim blaming, but the woman who wrote this seems to have serious anxiety issues and rather needs therapy.
As a cis man I try my best to not make women (or anyone else) feel uncomfortable at night time, but the reality is that almost any place in the developed world (including Ireland where this women seems to live) is very safe for women at night.
If anyone should be afraid it is actually men, as victim statistics very clearly show that they are by far the most common victims of violent crime in such settings (but of course also by far the most common perpetrators).
The same time, crime statistics also show that women typically become victims of violence at home and by people they know (even for rape cases it is typically people they know), so in fact from that perspective it should be safer for women to walk alone at night, then with someone they know accompanying them…
Tbh it’s not your job to do. Like, don’t intentionally make them uncomfortable but it’s not your responsibility to avoid them. You are not responsible for their feelings.
If we are talking about which gender should feel the most unsafe at night, it’s trans women. There has already been so many of them murdered this year. But the reality is that everyone is at risk because our world is an incredibly violent place nowadays. But the world tells us that women have to be scared for their lives because they are weak and vulnerable and the main target of violence. Even if this is not statistically true, that doesn’t change the worldview.
Yes, agreed the trans community faces a disproportional amount of violence directed towards them. But most statistics show that violent crime in general has been declining for decades in many countries and the world overall is probably much safer than it was in the recent past.
Of course there is still an incredible amount of injustice and economic exploitation (and also still too much violence), but we really need to work on this factually incorrect and overly anxious worldview.
Edit: making people afraid of irrational things and painting a rosy picture of a fake past is the quintessential fascist move to rally support behind them…
You’re right, we do need to work to remove the anxieties around safety, but also acknowledge that violence often happens to those members who would not be in a position of power to effectively use fascism i.e. migrants, trans women, black and indigenous people, and disabled folks.
The world is safe for those who it’s made for and we need to work to make them realize it, but also work to make the world safer for those pushed to the side.
Could you please provide some statistics about violence? I don’t know where you get the idea that the world ia so very violent- maybe you live somewhere more violent than I do though. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-crime-statistics
Has there been a huge spike in violence that hasn’t shown in statistics yet?
I know that crimes get attention and the news is full of that, but it seems that the world is safer now than it was in the 1990s (at least the United States).
That’s what I mean, my point was that even if the world is safer statistically, that doesn’t make people automatically feel safer because of the biases and experiences people had growing up
I dislike the idea that we have to make the world feel safer to everybody. The reason is that feelings are subjective and some people would feel safer in a world that is actually more dangerous (look at all the people who reflect positively about the safety of previous decades).
First, as @ufra asked earlier, why is this in OpenSorce?
Second, when reading the last sentences from the first paragraph just took off all the minimum value this post had. Using terms like “Cis” or whatever these twitter dumbasses say just makes it’s author looks less respectful.
Third, why are people unable to understand that to be safer, isn’t needed to pay someone to walking around with you, just get better cops, police or security guards, come on! You may say “Ah! But police is a bunch of machist man, harassers and rapers because our country is managed by people who are like that”.
JUST TAKE OFF THESE DUMBASSES FROM YOU GOVERNMENT ALREADY, EASY!
sorry, seeing people using those twitter terms just gets me really pissed off.
Using terms like “Cis” or whatever these twitter dumbasses say
Cis isn’t some twitter thing, its an actual scientific term that’s been used for a long time.
Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning “on this side of”, which is the opposite of trans-, meaning “across from” or “on the other side of”. This usage can be seen in the cis–trans distinction in chemistry, the cis and trans sides of the Golgi apparatus in cellular biology, the cis–trans or complementation test in genetics, in Ciscaucasia (from the Russian perspective), in the ancient Roman term Cisalpine Gaul (i.e., “Gaul on this side of the Alps”), Ciskei and Transkei (separated by the Kei River), and more recently, Cisjordan, as distinguished from Transjordan. In the case of gender, cis- describes the alignment of gender identity with assigned sex.[5]
Your whole rant is based off of misinformation.
I know “Cis” was commonly used in chemistry, especially Geometric Organic Chemistry Models, i’ve studied those things. What i mean is that binding it to “men” and then creating a “cis men” (Which refers to a man who attributes gender to sex at born, as you said) word isn’t even on dictionaries, also “cis” doesn’t fit as an adjective, so you can’t use it to describe something, in this case, a man. Cisgender is correct, but “cis men” isn’t even a concept. All my anger is about that author classifying “cis men”, i have nothing against “cisgender”, which can be attributed to any person, but saying specifically “cis men” is just unfair.
edit: Sorry, i have read my last comment again and realized it was quite offensive, i’m really sorry, that day i was quite angered.
I don’t understand what you mean saying cisgender men is the correct for but cis men doesn’t exist. cis men is just less cumbersome than saying cisgender men, and it works as an adjective about as well as saying trans man. The reason the author made the distinction is that trans men aren’t really a concern.
Forget it, i’ve take a look at all dictionaries as possible on web and all them classify “cis” as an adjective. I am sorry for my mistake, also for my last offensive comment.
nah its okay, the fact that you learned is good. Plus you’re one of the lucky 10,000
