------------
Gor is not just a flavor of porn, it is full philosophy of gender relationships. E.g. it does not just says "this gets me off", it says "this is nature of men/women, modern society is suppressing that nature and that is wrong". Some are in it for sex, but quite clearly others are in it because they believe in philosophy and attempt to live by it as much as possible/legal.
Is it possible to simultaneously believe that women are naturally submissive and happiest when they serve and simultaneously see leadership potential in women who is working under you? I dont know and I am glad that the question is not directly relevant to me.
However, if my boss would believe something like that, I guess I would have to either leave the company or accept I will be less likely to be promoted then male college of similar skills.
I have no idea whether Garfield is into Gor for kink or for gender philosophy nor whether that philosophy affected his leadership style. I dont care about whether he comes back or not. But, the more I looked into Gor the more it looked like way more then just another flavor of bdsm.
It's a series of fantasy f*#%ing novels, ofcourse it's role-play. Serious role play maybe, and definitively weird, but the author is _still alive_ and his name is not L. Ron Hubbard. Is he participating in political activism with mysogynistic undertones? Is he otherwise projecting gor-related gender views onto non-consenting parties? No. He just wants to do weird stuff together with other people who want to do weird stuff, socially and sexually. To assume that he holds these views to be morally absolute for everyone is a gross misrepresentation and unfortunately typical of persecution of weird people.
It seems so to me as well. There probably are people who take it a bit too far, just as there are in most fan groups (e.g., people who get cosmetic surgery to look like anime characters, etc.), but I don't recall hearing of any rash of abuse cases involving Goreans (apologies if that's not the right term).
I'm wondering just how far this goes. I have a friend who participates in Civil War reenactments (again, apologies if I don't get the terminology right). He plays a Confederate, and spends a considerable amount of time and money getting his gear and persona as close to perfect as he possibly can. That doesn't mean he really believes in slavery, or even that the South should have won the Civil War. Quite the contrary -- I'm 100% sure that he doesn't believe those things. This is just something he does for fun.
"Oh so you believe this or that? Well you now embody those beliefs and are complicit in all crimes motivated by them. Your mere presence is oppressive to people who have been slighted by actions or words motivated by the same beliefs. May your career end and your friends abandon you."
The political actions of communities come out of political consensus, which is exactly what's happening with this letter: people are trying to agree on political action. A "politics-free" community is just one where everyone already agrees, or nothing has ever come up for people to disagree over.
Open software is built by groups of people and one part of building a community it deciding what sort of people you want to work with.
At some point, some open source communities will need to decide whether they work on open technologies or they are political activists with a political mission that serves the interests of a specific political side, or political doctrine[1] If I'm into, I don't know, some niche Porn that isn't illegal, can it be considered "offensive to women" and should I be ejected as a contributor because of my personal sexual tastes in order to satisfy those that might be offended by this, even if I never bring up that matter in public? Now, if I'm part of an atheist association, and I publicly question the reality of a mainstream religion, can it be considered offensive to Muslims and should I be ejected of a totally unrelated community because some of its members that are not even of the religion think that what I said is offensive toward Muslims?
1 : one can argue "free software" is political. It is, but it has to do with the protection of users and their right to access and modify source code. It has nothing to do with women's rights or making blasphemy socially unacceptable, especially when positions are taken outside the context of the project community.