From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steffen Schulz Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 09:40:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <87pnvt9fhz.fsf@gmail.com> <3893574.yNgoui0T1j@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <87a7mua2kz.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38564) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gI8Yq-0002Y6-Tw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 04:42:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gI8Ym-0000KF-Td for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 04:42:40 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::331]:51436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gI8Ym-0000Ie-Il for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 04:42:36 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id w7-v6so677867wmc.1 for ; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 01:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.11.0.191] ([91.208.212.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r16-v6sm27536085wrv.21.2018.11.01.01.42.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Nov 2018 01:42:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a7mua2kz.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org One could also argue that there is a oversensible victim "culture" which leads to "stats" such as these, as people tend overexaggarate quite easily in those matters. I am sorry. I'm absolutely sick of these kinds of discussions in mailing lists like this. On 10/31/18 10:27 AM, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > Hello, > > I agree with Ricardo's email that really we should be discussing the CoC > in relation to specific patches against it, to avoid circular debate. > So I will only respond to the specific bit directly asking me to provide > evidence. > > HiPhish writes: > >> On Monday, 29 October 2018 12:08:56 CET you wrote: >>> I think you a have burden of proof here, given that our culture at large >>> has serious issues with harassment. Why would you think FLOSS community >>> is somehow different from the wider community? >> No, you have a burden of proof that "our" culture (whatever this "our" is >> supposed to mean, I have no idea where you live and you have no idea >> where I >> live) has a serious issue with harassment. > [I apologise for the narrow focus on sexual / gender / sex based focus > of the stats below; it's what I'm most familiar with.] > > "According to a TUC/Everyday Sexism study on sexual harassment, 52% of > women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and 80% did > not report it to their employer." > [https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=9127932a-455f-4d0c-909d-3563c17dc7c5, > available from > https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace] > > "In 2014, SSH commissioned a 2,000-person national survey in the USA with > surveying firm GfK. The survey found that 65% of all women had > experienced street harassment. Among all women, 23% had been sexually > touched, 20% had been followed, and 9% had been forced to do something > sexual. Among men, 25% had been street harassed (a higher percentage of > LGBT-identified men than heterosexual men reported this) and their most > common form of harassment was homophobic or transphobic slurs (9%)." > http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/ > > "Almost fully one third of the approximately 90,000 charges received by > EEOC in fiscal year 2015 included an allegation of workplace > harassment. This includes, among other things, charges of unlawful > harassment on the basis of sex (including sexual orientation, gender > identity, and pregnancy), race, disability, age, ethnicity/national > origin, color, and religion." and "Roughly three out of four individuals > who experienced harassment never even talked to a supervisor, manager, > or union representative about the harassing conduct." > [from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/report_summary.cfm] > > In 2012, in Belgium, the film Femme de la Rue directly influenced the > passing of legislation to make street harassment > illegal. > [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/03/belgium-film-street-harassment-sofie-peeters] > It also helped kick-start movements in Belgium and France where street > harassment is fairly common. In london, UK, 4 in 10 women between ages > of 18 and 34 experienced street harassment in 2011 alone > [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually-harassed]. > > "54% (272) had experienced some form of workplace sexual harassment." > This is from a 2008 study in Singapore > [http://www.aware.org.sg/training/wsh-site/14-statistics/]. > > The stats bear out 2 things: a) harassment is very prevalent; b) if > anything, harassment is underreported, not overreported. > > Of course the above are all related to a relatively narrow geographic > domain. I would be very surprised indeed if there was a place that > conducted similar studies, where the picture would not be roughly the > same or worse. > > You are correct that I don't know where you're from, but it kind of > doesn't matter, because harassment, especially that on the basis of > gender, sex or sexuality, is a global phenomenon. > > Best wishes, > > Alex >