[diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Sarah Hoffmann]

Hi,

sorry for warming up this discussion just when everybody has cooled down,
but something about this whole incident keeps bothering me.

Imagine that the situation at hand would have been slightly different,
imagine it would have played out like this (purely hypothetical of course):

 Serge, in a thread about childcare, makes a thoughtless, humorously meant
 side-mark that is quite a bit derogative to women. Alyssa, having had a
 bad day (don't we all have those), replies with an angry mail, stating
 that this was the worst insult she has ever heard and that he should be
 ashamed of himself. Serge immediately replies that she has always been an
 asshole and that he doesn't talk to people like her.

Would the moderation have banned Alyssa in this situation? Would the others
on this list have been so ready to defend Serge's reaction or would it have
been more likely that it still would have been Serge who would have ended
up being reprimanded for using swear words?

Consider this more of a rhetorical question but it highlights what has been
bothering me about the entire diversity debate since very much the beginning.
There seems to be too little discussion on how to correct the skewed proportions
in the distribution of mappers. Instead everything seems focused on the
protection of minorities, rather euphemistically called creating a safe place,
and finger pointing. I find that dangerous on many levels.

First of all, invoking protection is not the same as showing respect and
interest in minority groups. Protectors always have a certain self-
interest, may that be a commercial interest or just the goal of feeling
better about themselves by seemingly helping the helpless. And that carries
the danger that protection becomes misguided.  In the case of gender
diversity this has gone so far that the whole discussion is now focussed
on the argument that woman need protection. Basically, this is just playing on
the same old stereotype that woman are weak and cannot defend themselves.
I find that annoying and derogative. To me, it's nothing but chauvinism
in disguise. This thread is a classic example. The general consensus
seems to be that Alyssa can be forgiven because she needs her safe space
while Serge can handle a decent beating and doesn't need respect or forgiveness.

The second problem is that protectionism wants to justify itself. To that end
here on this list (following the lead of the geek feminism discussions)
it has been repeatedly encouraged to find and call out offense in all
human social interactions. While it indeed can help to rise awareness
to certain misguided social conventions, it has it's dangers because it tends
to make huge issues out of small blunders. It's exactly what has happened
in the last two days on this list. Personally, I'm more for "don't
take offense where none is meant". But that might be cultural. If you
want offense to be pointed out, then you absolutely must first have
mechanisms in place to deal with it objectively. This list has obviously
no such mechanism as it has simply banned somebody for pointing
out such an offense. (As, at the same time, you seem perfectly happy with
people calling each other names, it makes no sense to pretend that Serge
was banned for the tone of his message.)

Third, there is an inherent prejudgement of the majority groups here,
in particular in the harassment debates. Voicing disagreement is frequently
taken to be synonymous to trolling or harassment. If you are male, your words
are taken to be sexist. If you are straight, you must be homophobic etc.
I'm exaggerating a bit but that is what the current atmosphere feels like
to me. The result is that members of the majority groups prefer to
shut up and gather in smaller groups among themselves where they are
free of such prejudgement. It's exactly the opposite of what a diversity
debate should result in.

A final remark: there is a good reason I haven't joined this list before
today. I had the intent to do so about two weeks after it was founded.
Looking through the archives before finishing the subscription process,
the first message I came upon was a mail from Alyssa rallying up support
against another NYC mapper whom she had some personal disagreement with.
I didn't know who it was at the time but that wasn't important anyway.
To me the message had every aspect of a mobbing campaign. It did not
fill me with confidence that this list is a safe place to speak your
mind freely. So I walked away.

My opinion has not improved since then, so it's unlikely that I will stay.
If you are truly interested in improving diversity, I strongly suggest that
you go out meet the people you want to draw in, understand what their
interests are and what would attract them to participate in OpenStreetMap.
Then go to the people who are already part of OSM, talk to them and
understand what makes them tick. Listen, then listen, and finally
listen some more. Only then will it be possible to come up
with a strategy on how you can bring them together. Please stop focussing
solely on which people to shut out.

Kind regards

Sarah