Having said that, "money shot" really is a clear reference to porn, and I was surprised to see it used in the way that it was. It's not inappropriate for every venue, but it seems pretty clear cut to say it's inappropriate for the title of a presentation at a tech conference.
The relation to porn is of course obvious due to the presentation's subtitle, referring to something as a 'money shot' should probably not be considered pornographic in intent, in my opinion.
"I'm co-opting the term money shot, because I think it's very valuable... we all know what it is, if you don't know you can google it because I'm not going to talk about it, but if you co-opt the concept what you come away with is the content people actually care about and that is what people pay for in porn..."
If you can't talk about the title it's probably not a very good one.
I thought that the porn context was quite inappropriate myself and broadly supported Richards at the time, although I also think she should have taken her concerns directly to the organizers first. I'm not really offended by porn, but I'd rather not watch it myself, and it's very predictable that it will be offensive to quite a few other people, who'll feel excluded from that presentation even if they're interested in the technical topic (making effective screencasts). In the organizers' position I'd have asked the presenter to consider something more general, such as 'what you can learn from movie directors'.
Why don't women go into tech? Because they'll be in a distinct minority, and if you're ambitious and have some sense you'll avoid putting yourself in that situation. Better to go into a field like medicine where you're not the odd one out if you're a woman, where it's not unusual or atypical to find women in positions of power, etc. That's the nuts and bolts of it.
Everything else is bike shedding. It's nothing more than "what do people talk like in this new version of the industry where women still have no power?"
So why is it the focus? Because the male-dominated industry is willing to entertain forcing everyone to by hypersensitive about what they say. "Sensitivity" and "inclusiveness" is cheap. It is not willing to take affirmative steps to hire more women, put women in positions of power, etc. That's not cheap and upsets the entrenched power dynamic.
Nursing is a bit of an inverse of tech, 93% women. Nursing has great and growing salaries, similar educational requirements and massive upward mobility... yet men still make up less than 7% of the industry.
The problem we're having is that men in tech love their strip clubs so much that they'd rather just get rid of the woman patrons altogether.
"Our goal is to create an inclusive, respectful conference environment that invites participation from people of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, abilities, religions, and sexual orientations. " https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/diversity/
If PyCon were a workplace that was large enough to be under Title VII, then a truthful complaint about sexual harassment is given extra protection. For example, a company cannot retaliate due to a complaint, including by using an otherwise valid justification as pretext for a . The complaint may be made in public, and the complainant may picket, talk with important customers, newspaper reporters, etc.. The person who makes the complaint does not need to be the person affected by the sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination under Title VII, and for sexual harassment there does not even need to be a component of sexual desire. This is confirmed by the courts, up even to multiple Supreme Court cases.
This has nothing to do with creating 'a "kinder, gentler" atmosphere appropriate for delicate-minded women-folk.' It has to do with exercising civil right protections that people already have at most companies. These same civil rights laws apply to men. You might read about Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. I'll quote from the Supreme Court's decision:
> In late October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. ... On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape.
> Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in fact, the company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen “picked [on] him all the time too,” and called him a name suggesting homosexuality. Id., at 77. Oncale eventually quit–asking that his pink slip reflect that he “voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse.” Id., at 79. When asked at his deposition why he left Sundowner, Oncale stated “I felt that if I didn’t leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex.” Id., at 71.
The law that keeps you from being in a workplace where others can threaten you with rape is the same law that lets others, women and men, speak out about possible sexual harassment in the workplace. Including, yes, even complaining about sexual jokes.
You think it's to do with "offense", but the law and the courts are clear that "Title VII . . . does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace." Instead, "a plaintiff must show that a rational jury could find that the workplace [was] permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." The Supreme Court has instructed that courts judging hostility should "filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of age-related jokes, and occasional teasing". The easiest way for a company to comply is to set a very low threshold for reporting a possible incident, and let the EEOC compliance person investigate and develop an appropriate remedy, if needed.
PyCon isn't a Title VII workplace, and there are difficulties in mapping EEOC guidelines to a conference environment, but I believe the conference should still be guided by the same moral basis as the civil rights laws. Unless you think it's okay for your workplace to allow your co-workers to subject you to "sex-related, humiliating actions", then you should defend those same moral principles and stop thinking that the debate includes a request for a right to not be offended.
Even using your "laser-like" focus metaphor, you shouldn't have all of your lasers pointed in the same direction. Problems come from all directions, and different people should and do focus on the problems that most interest and/or affect them.
The purpose of the feminist movement is not to solve all the problems of all the people. It's to advance the cause of women in the workplace. To the extent that going off on tangents detracts from that, it's a disservice to the core constituency.
The court held that the proliferation of pornography and demeaning comments, if sufficiently continuous and pervasive "may be found to create an atmosphere in which women are viewed as men's sexual playthings rather than as their equal coworkers." Barbetta, 669 F. Supp. At 573. The Commission agrees that, depending on the totality of circumstances, such an atmosphere may violate Title VII. See also Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 50 EPD ¶ 39,106 (5th Cir. 1989), in which the 5th Circuit endorsed the Commission's position in its amicus brief that evidence of ongoing sexual graffiti in the workplace, not all of which was directed at the plaintiff, was relevant to her claim of harassment. Bennett v. Coroon & Black Corp., 845 F.2d 104, 46 EPD ¶ 37,955 (5th Cir. 1988) (the posting of obscene cartoons in an office men's room bearing the plaintiff's name and depicting her engaged in crude and deviant sexual activities could create a hostile work environment).
I use this to show that the bar needed to show a hostile environment is a lot lower than you likely think it is.
It's even low enough to include sexual jokes. While sexual jokes in the workplace are not prohibited under Title VII:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome."
I interpret this to mean that someone who finds that "dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes" are not (or no longer) welcome can provide notice under Title VII. (And Title VII is quite broad about what constitutes 'provide notice.') If those jokes continue, then it may be a sign of sexual harassment.
But the very first step is to provide notice. Which is what happened here.
How do you conclude, based on the body of court cases and EEOC decisions on this topic, that complaining about dick jokes "is a slap in the face to all the men and women who actually have to endure sexual harassment" when the EEOC says that someone who doesn't like dick jokes should complain about it, and that continued exposure to unwanted dirty jokes can be an indication of sexual harassment?
Also your conclusion re: dirty jokes displays a basic logical reasoning error. What the case says is that participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome. It does not say a dirty joke should be responded to by filing notice.
If someone has a reasonable belief that a workplace is sexist (and there's a broad definition of what "reasonable" means), then that person can file a report (and there's a broad definition of what "report" means), and the company may not retaliate (and there's a broad definition of what "retaliate" means).
That doesn't mean that the report must be true in order to make a report, or that dirty jokes necessarily indicate a hostile workplace. Nor does it mean that if a report isn't true then the company may retaliate.
Yes, "participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome". That is correct and you, I, and the courts are all in agreement. But you are ignoring the second part, which is that stopping participation isn't enough to indicate that the jokes are unwelcome. Someone must first complain in order to indicate that there is a change in status.
So it most certainly does say that if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person once participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
Using 'basic logical reasoning', if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person has never participated participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
The reason you may have difficulties is you are looking at the results of an incident where the courts have decided that a "proliferation" of pornography is an example of sexual harassment which is not allowed under Title VII. However, PyCon does not want to be a place where sexual harassment is allowed.
The Title VII reporting mechanism which end up in court are the same as the Title VII reporting mechanisms used to point out possible cases of sexual harassment in a company, so that a company might correct the situation and avoid going to court.
That's why there does not need to be a "proliferation" of sexual discrimination before people can complain about their civil rights being violated.
"things that tie members of the coalition together."
Does decorum or decency or sensibility count?
If the talk referenced "My Two Dads" -- they would be welcome to be offended, and leave.
I am not homosexual and I don't find gays offensive. Nonetheless, I would be incredibly disturbed to be hearing about "homosexual haskell" or "faggot functions". It's not appropriate in a tech conference, regardless of your sexual orientation or opinion about sexual orientation.
"I personally wouldn’t really much care myself, but Adria’s right. This is a direct porn reference and doesn’t belong at a technical conference. Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds (and just I-think-it’s-morally-wrong-and-vile grounds)"
As someone who cares deeply about getting women into traditionally male-dominated areas (starting from HS when I did robotics demos for elementary schoolers to now as the father of a daughter) I think it's unmitigated disaster for feminists to hitch their wagon to the broader "I'm easily offended by everything" movement. There is a crucial distinction between things that are offensive because they are sexist and things that are offensive because they are in bad taste--one perpetuates unfavorable gender-biased power dynamics and the other does not. Waging war on the whole panoply of things that might offend someone somewhere is dilutive and counter-productive.
Movements that are effective at building coalitions are ruthlessly focused on the things that tie members of the coalition together. By taking on battles that are outside the core focus of how women are treated in tech, you lose the support of many people, especially women, who should be part of that coalition.
PS. This rant is veering off onto "man telling women what to do" and for that I apologize. But my thoughts on the matter seem to be pretty consistent with, and are mostly informed by, the thinking of my wife and female friends, all professional women trying to make it in traditionally male-dominated fields.