A Response from Hoss Gifford and a Follow-up by Dave Schroeder
posted on 6/15/09 by Nancy Lyons and Meghan Wilker
Dave and Hoss sent us the following letters this morning. We hope that everyone who has been involved takes the time to read them.
There is one important note that we feel compelled to add to the discussion at this point: We do not condone or endorse the negative, vitriolic and, in some cases, violent direction that many of the tweets and comments in this discussion have taken. Our intention was to start a public conversation, not to threaten anyone or make them fearful.
There has been lots of ugliness in this conversation. We don't support that, but we can't control the conversation. We've tried to do what we can to keep it productive and positive. The good news is that a vocal discussion is taking place that indicates that there may be a positive impact beyond just the Minneapolis community. Thanks to everyone who has contributed constructively to the discussion.
Read Dave's letter >
I feel compelled to say something that may not make sense to some people. In my heart I know I have to say this. I suppose it's PR suicide.
I try to be a person of integrity, and accept responsibility for my actions. I can't live with myself if I don't act accountably to everyone involved in this situation. And that means some accountability to Hoss as well. I'm very distressed by the degree of demonization being aimed at Hoss as a result of his presentation at Flashbelt. Again, I do not condone offensive content and I don't want it presented to my attendees. The content was inappropriate. I knew enough about his presentation style to be held accountable for booking him. I take full responsibility for this. I exercised poor judgment. I admit to my mistakes. read more >
Read Hoss's Letter >
On Tuesday 9th June I gave a presentation at the Flashbelt conference that contained some content that some of the audience found offensive. It was wrong for those people to have been exposed to this content without their consent. For this, I take full responsibility and offer my sincere apologies to the audience members that were affected. read more >
Dave Schroeder: A continuation of my comments and apology regarding Hoss Gifford's talk at Flashbelt.
I feel compelled to say something that may not make sense to some people. In my heart I know I have to say this. I suppose it's PR suicide.
I try to be a person of integrity, and accept responsibility for my actions. I can't live with myself if I don't act accountably to everyone involved in this situation. And that means some accountability to Hoss as well. I'm very distressed by the degree of demonization being aimed at Hoss as a result of his presentation at Flashbelt. Again, I do not condone offensive content and I don't want it presented to my attendees. The content was inappropriate. I knew enough about his presentation style to be held accountable for booking him. I take full responsibility for this. I exercised poor judgment. I admit to my mistakes.
However, I can't in good conscience just leave him out to there to burn at the stake as he currently is. It would be easy to let him be the sacrificial lamb and for me to try and save my reputation. Perhaps all I'll do is end up on the stake with him, I can handle that, I deserve that, but I can't live with myself if I don't put all of my cards on the table here and represent my complete feelings on this matter to everyone, about everyone. My reputation should be tarnished, I made serious errors and I accept the repercussions.
I've known Hoss for a few years. I've had good, respectable fun with him. I like him as a person. He has a sharp mind. He has a good heart. I've included comments about his person from the beginning. For those who find that unimaginable, I suspect you don't know him personally, or outside for the buzz around his presentation at Flashbelt. I believe that whether you know him or not, everyone's opinion on the content of his presentation is valid. REPEAT, all opinions are valid whether you were there or not. But certainly some opinions are more informed, and are more aware of the actual content than others, and it makes sense to give different degrees of consideration to these opinions. Several people who were in attendance have posted their views on the session. I encourage you to find and read their posts, simply to be as informed as possible.
Finally, the calls to incite hatred and cause physical harm to him are simply absurd to me, and to a real degree dangerous. Comments and calls to action of that sort are unsophisticated and unproductive. Imagine if people had access to social media during the Salem witch hunts or the era of McCarthyism. Would we have burned more witches because of Twitter, or would we have stopped it sooner because of Twitter? I'm not talking about the cause of the mob here; being a witch or a communist is not equatable to Hoss' presentation. The offense was committed for sure. But the way in which the public carries itself in response to any controversy is worth reflection.
*One amendment to my first response and apology; I referred to Hoss' content as offensive and misogynistic in my apology. Now that I've had the chance to talk with more people who attended the session. I believe that it was offensive, but misogynistic (hatred of women) is not correct. I know Hoss well enough to know he's not a misogynist. If I thought that about him I would never have booked him. Accurate language is very important.
Hoss contacted me Saturday. We spoke Sunday. I can assure you his taking this seriously as well and feels badly about the effect of his presentation.
Sincerely,
Dave Schroeder
Flashbelt Producer
dave@flashbelt.com
Letter from Hoss:
On Tuesday 9th June I gave a presentation at the Flashbelt conference that contained some content that some of the audience found offensive. It was wrong for those people to have been exposed to this content without their consent. For this, I take full responsibility and offer my sincere apologies to the audience members that were affected.
In order for people that were not present at the presentation to develop a more informed opinion, I have posted the content of my slides and sites I linked out to at http://hossgifford.com/2009/flashbelt/.
I would like to point out that, at the time of writing this, I have received considerably more positive feedback on my Flashbelt presentation than negative - if you exclude those who did not attend the presentation. This affirmation includes female attendees going out their way to stop me at the conference and thank me openly for my presentation. I have received no emails, phone calls or any other form of direct contact with any negative comments.
It’s also worth noting that in the couple of days I spent at the conference venue after my presentation, not a single person approached me to express any concern about any part of my presentation. I attended presentations and the organised evening events making myself very visible, and yet nobody complained to me.
I can be crude and my presentations can be risqué but I am neither sexist nor a misogynist. I am concerned that my presentation is being described as being loaded with both. Not guilty. I have a strong willed wife and two young daughters - I wouldn't last two minutes with the merest hint of misogyny. That said, my presentation could definitely cause offence to some people in society, and I have never tried to be to everyone's taste.
To quote Courtney Remes, "It's all about context. This was not the right context for Hoss." She’s absolutely right. It was a mistake for my presentation to feature as a keynote presentation at Flashbelt - even if it had been labelled as having adult content as some have suggested. With the benefit of hindsight I should have suggested a less prominent spot, or even an evening appearance at a bar venue. Either way, there will always be people that feel there is no place for a presentation like mine, as there will always be people that would like to ban lewd comedians and violent video games.
I do, however, owe one further apology. But first some context. I spent the the morning leading up to my presentation in Fairview hospital ER being treated for a broken hand, which was splinted (still is, as I type this), and I was given a strong pain killer called Vicodin. I gave my talk while heavily under the influence of Vicodin, and as a result of this poor judgement I was looser with my language than I would normally have been, but the content of my presentation went ahead as planned. One statement I made, that if you are easily offended then f*** you, was wrong, and out of character, and I apologise to everyone that attended my presentation for this. If you get the opportunity to listen to a recording of the talk you will hear me stumbling for something to say as I resort to the profanity. I would not have made this offensive statement if I hadn’t been non compos mentis.
My conference presentation has evolved over the last 8 years based on both the direction my work, and crucially, the feedback I get from my talks - and I get a lot. Prior to this talk I received zero complaints regarding offending any members of the audience. I accept this is no guarantee that nobody was offended, but I can only work with the feedback I receive. The irreverent side to my presentations historically received the most praise and I reacted accordingly by increasing the level of banter.
The more raucous my presentation became, the better the feedback I received and in turn the more conference organisers invited me to speak. When a conference invites me to speak they know my talk will be as risqué and entertaining as it is informative. Flashbelt is no exception in this.
Indeed, I performed the exact same presentation two weeks earlier at the Flash on Tap conference in Boston, with a great deal of positive feedback, and more than three quarters of the presentation was made at conferences in Brighton, Belgium, and Germany last year - again with universally positive feedback. Now I have feedback of another nature and I will absolutely take this on board.
But try for a second, if you will, to put yourself in my shoes.
You've been making conference presentations that have brought positive feedback for many years and Flashbelt initially seems no different. But all of a sudden there is a massive backlash against your appearance, a backlash full of inaccuracies and exaggerations - what we call tabloid journalism in the UK - a type of journalism where facts needn't be checked if they can bring in readers. Do you start posting a defence, pointing out the inaccuracies, and try to get people to see sense? Or do you do what I did, and read everything that's written on the subject and wait for the dust to settle and tempers to cool.
The problem with waiting is that the mob gets restless - they are out for blood. Consider reading the cry for you to be set on fire, the cry for you to be waterboarded. Consider, as I had to yesterday morning, what to tell your wife when she doesn't want to open the blinds in your house for fear that someone is waiting out there to cause you harm.
If Flashbelt had booked an adult comedian for the conference who had caused offence would you be set on destroying their career as a comedian, and work on a witch hunt to destroy their day job while you were at it? All because they did what they do, but in the wrong context.
It may seem perverse, but I am delighted at the quantity (if not the quality) of dialogue that this has initiated around the subject of equality in the developer community. I would love to see more female speakers at conferences, as I know of so many phenomenally talented women in influential positions (just look at the Flash Player dev team for example). But don't forget how many fabulous female speakers there already are. In the Flash community I have yet to see Veronique Brossier, Niqui Merret, or Stacey Mulcahy give a bad talk, and Flashbelt this year was no exception. But until now I've never really thought anything of them being girls, they were always just talented peers.
Where do we go from here? I suspect this isn't the lie-down-and-kick-me apology that the lynch mob is looking for and some will continue their mission for blood. These are the people that wrote tweets and comments with the line “I wasn't there but...” in them. We all know the ignorance of people who use the lines “I'm not racist but...” and “I'm not sexist but...”.
There is nothing I can do to stop these people from putting their energy into destroying my career. If that's what you feel would be most productive in achieving your goals then there's nothing me or anyone else is going to say to slow you down.
To those of you who are using this eruption of attention to address the real issue of gender equality within our industry, I salute you. I encourage everyone to take part in the dialogue and to help make a tangible difference in the future. If you feel there is anything I can do to help, then post a comment - I read them all.
In addition to my apologies I have some thanks to give. First and foremost I'd like to thank Courney Remes for making a stand and going out on a limb to initiate this whole dialogue. Hopefully in the future, this won't be considered 'going out on a limb'. I'd also like to thank Dave Schroeder for being the utmost professional by being both supportive and accountable. Flashbelt really is one of the best conferences in the world and it's all down to Dave - don't let this incident put you off. Thanks also go out to Nancy and Meghan for providing a home for this discourse, and helping keeping things on topic when the lynch mob started to get out of control.
Perhaps my biggest thanks, however, go out to the people that also went out on a limb and posted a more rounded account of what went down. In the heat of the moment when the accusation is misogyny, it could be construed that to ask people to rationally consider the situation is to condone such behaviour. Thankfully there are enough level headed people out there to realise there is usually more than one side to a story. You know who you are - I am in your debt.
Once again, to Courtney and the other men and women in the audience that took offence to my presentation, I apologise unreservedly. I really do hope we can now turn this into a debate that creates a positive outcome.
Hoss Gifford.
Glasgow, June 15th 2009.
48 Comments:
48 Comment:
Comments:
He did hit upon a true point though: controversy and entertainment are highly appealing to a conference promoter- heck for any industry. Maybe the answer to bill Hoss's material as "entertainment" and not "conference presentation"? Proper categorization goes a long way in setting proper expectations.
If anyone who defends that presentation has ever thought, "Gee, I would love to see more women embrace technology careers," you're an idiot. This IS why- a lack of respect for our bodies and emotional well-being.
I think Hoss should know, however, that just because he's mostly received "positive feedback" for his presentations doesn't make their sexist/offensive content okay. Sure, likeminded colleagues are probably going to high-five his work. But what about people who don't feel they're allowed to express otherwise? As one can see from Courtney's post, she was very hesitant to speak up.
In addition, while Hoss may not be a "misogynist", would he have been comfortable with his daughters' or wife's visages getting defaced on the screen? Or them being shown in compromising positions?
And what about people in the audience who may have been victims of sexual crime? Or people whose religious/personal beliefs prohibit being exposed to such content? This isn't about being a prude; it's about being a considerate, thoughtful and informed human being.
I highly doubt Hoss is a terrible person. (And, nobody deserves to be threatened as has been the case online.) He obviously reveled in all of the praise he got for his "risque" approach, went overboard, and now realizes his mistake. Knowing that he's from the UK also helps put things in perspective, as it's true that sexuality/nudity is far more gratuitous in Europe. Still, better judgment on his part in the future is imperative. It looks like he's already taking the right steps toward that.
Incidentally, I never saw the picture - no female on the job site saw the picture, nor did we know about the incident until it was already in motion. The complaint came from a foreman on the jobsite who cared about keeping the workplace an acceptable environment for everyone, including women.
And this was a *construction site*, so take of that what you will.
We live in a culture that objectifies women. Women are a main objectifier of women, BTW, in the beauty and fashion industries. But objectifying women at a technology conference, where women are sorely underrepresented, is indefensible.
This conversation is good and will hopefully remind presenters of their responsibility to all members of the audience.
So let's praise Dave for his awesome attitude and forgive Hoss for his blunder and learn something from this.
I acknowledge in my post that I now realise that people may have been offended in previous presentations, but I can only react and evolve my presentation based on the feedback that I get.
Also, if you're interested, Geoff Stearns has posted an interesting article at http://blog.deconcept.com/2009/06/15/what-really-happened-at-flashbelt-09/
Sorry but this guy is really clueless and if he still 'doesn't get it', then maybe the threat of damage to his career will actually force him to 'get it'. This type of sexual crudity HAS NO PLACE in a work/professional environment. Period.
We are in a comparatively irreverent industry. I remember seeing a couple of people swear onstage at the Webbies back in 2005, for example. We tend, as a whole, to lean toward more radical politics, more speaking your mind, and more irreverent humor -- across all genders -- as compared to other industries. The relative permissiveness in our industry partially accounts for why you might see something that pushes “the line” on stage at a web technologies conference than say, at a professional conference of another type. This needs to be kept in mind when the term “professionalism” is used rhetorically in these conversations.
So one thing that I think is true, is that we will continually be dancing toward “the line”, and not just on issues of gender, but also politics and other areas. And because of this, we do need to continually revisit what the boundaries of “offense” are or might be. Hopefully this will result not in fear-based non-expressive atmospheres, but in a civilized atmosphere where we are sensitive to our audiences, and they are sensitive to us as we express ourselves with whatever level of irreverence or forthrightness we choose. As a part of the inclusive atmosphere, it is critical that that inclusiveness works in all directions, and that all stakeholders keep a good faith attitude of questioning the content and context of their actions, and also the character and motives of their “offense”, or whatever reactions might be invoked. For example, in the current climate, it is very easy for people with right leaning views to feel like they can’t express them, at least in the web development environments in which I have worked. While many on “the left” might say “they deserve it after all these years of domination by the Bush-ites”, but inclusiveness always goes both ways, and the goal ultimately, whether the issue is gender, race, religion, lifestyle of political stance, is to make the environment as open and inclusive as possible for people to express themselves.
The uber-goal, with this reflective consideration of expressers and reactors, is that we are able to openly discuss all factors at any time. That we have a safe environment for people to express and feedback. That includes allowing room for people to offend, allowing room for people to express their discomfort, and allowing room for people to apologize, be heard, and agree or disagree. Everything will work out for the best if that is the atmosphere of discourse that we support. We wont always agree, but we must put as much effort as possible into seeing the world from each other’s viewpoint.
I think the big thing that men often forget when they are being irreverent, is that on the whole, women take reference to their bodies more seriously than men do. Because of the history of objectification in our culture, there are just different emotions that are evoked when “humor” involves womens’ bodies. Many may laugh, but many WILL feel degraded personally. In some utopian world, we might be able to joke about each others bodies with no emotional consequence, but in our current historical situation this is not the case. People (such as conference presenters) can either decides to ignore that fact or incorporate it into what they do. But they cannot escape the reality of their historical situation, which is that if you use women’s bodies as a means of creating “entertainment”, you are in dangerous waters with making members of the audience feel degraded as opposed to entertained. Because men do not have the visceral reaction that many women do around this type of content, and because we live in a world where we can be more irreverent in our humor, we do need to be reminded of how some audiences will be affected by it.
“The tact of audacity is to know how far to go too far”
- Jean Cocteau to Ezra Pound
First, it's Minneapolis. Like it or not, negative feedback isn't often given in person or at all (kudos to Geek Girls for bringing this up at all). It's just a cultural thing here.
Second, I can almost guarantee that the majority of the women in the audience have been sexually harassed at work at some point of their career. That's because every woman I know--every single one--has been sexually harassed at least once. And every woman that they know, and so on and so on. Sadly enough, it just becomes the norm. Not acceptable, but normal. Unless significant change occurs, your daughters will almost certainly be harassed at work at least once. Maybe even at an industry conference? Imagine it--it will happen unless you personally push for change.
So the lack of negative feedback is not a good enough reason to keep your presentation content intact. I urge you to use your talent and experience to build a new presentation, instead of using your energies to defend the old one.
So. Not. Getting. It.
I watched the presentation, and it certainly crossed the line. I realize you do it because audiences like something exciting. But imagine if instead of nude/semi-nude female bodies a presentation included equivalent degrading treatment of black people, or Jews. I expect few people would have considered that acceptable.
I appreciate that you're considering the feedback, and I hope you can re-write your presentation to include the amusing and education portion, without objectifying women. And I do hope you realize that just like the few folks who are calling those who objected names, those that call you names are the minority that are trying to sow dissension instead of fix the problem. Most of us don't want to perpetuate name calling, we just want to make sure that everyone understands that objectifying women is not the way to make your presentation interesting/enjoyable/productive.
You're blowing my mind. Is everyone actually allowed to be that civil to each other? I think I want to live in your world. I love it.
Escalation is not an answer, it will not work.
Carlos: Thanks for the thoughtful commentary that you've provided here and elsewhere over the past several days.
"*there are enough level headed people out there to realise there is usually more than one side to a story. [UNDERCUTTING HIS APOLOGY COMPLETELY]
* I suspect this isn't the lie-down-and-kick-me apology that the lynch mob is looking for [THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY AN APOLOGY AT ALL, EXCEPT HE USED THE WORD]
* all of a sudden there is a massive backlash against your appearance, a backlash full of inaccuracies and exaggerations [UM, NOOOOO. NO ONE DISPUTES THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT HOSS SAID AND DID IN HIS PRESENTATION.]
* Prior to this talk I received zero complaints regarding offending any members of the audience. [TYPICAL STATEMENT OF SEXUAL HARASSERS, A LA "I HAD NO IDEA!!"]
* I gave my talk while heavily under the influence of Vicodin [YEAH, SURE, BUT YOUR TALK HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY MANY AS TYPICAL FOR YOU]
* not a single person approached me to express any concern about any part of my presentation. [AGAIN, TYPICAL SEXUAL HARASSER MAKING EXCUSES FOR IMPROPRIETY]
* I have never tried to be to everyone's taste. [SOUNDS LIKE A NON-APOLOGY TO ME]
What a hypocrite. Yes, I'm being a pitchfork wielder, but this non-apology/pile of excuses just fans the flames, and is quite along the lines of the tweet he wrote a few days ago when the furor started. Hoss does not deserve to be asked back to any conference as a speaker, since his judgment is so skewed. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....
Another commenter says:
"So. Not. Getting. It."
and I agree.
Simply being in relationships with females has no bearing on whether or not Hoss is misogynistic or sexist. The descriptions of his presentation, designed for a professional conference, indicate that he is indeed both, along with being rather magnificently insensitive to the reactions of his colleagues in attendance, several of whom posted about their reactions here.
Perhaps Hoss has spent a little more time with pornography stars than is good for a person who wants retain a balanced attitude about women in general. It's so easy to retreat into a world of pornographic display and interaction. Perhaps he is making assumptions about all females based on those particular women. After all, pornographic women appear to be quite happy in all kinds of demeaning and degrading situations. I can imagine that since pornography-based females don't talk back, but encourage more and more exaggerated sexuality that Hoss has been seduced into thinking that everyone is happy with exploitation and objectification of females. Perhaps his misogyny and sexism are just a result of his socialization into pornographic culture.
It wouldn't be unusual for him to be socialized into pornographic culture. Males are very tempted by the fantasy offered in pornographic works. It's fantastically big business. Unfortunately, it's merely a fantasy business.
Real live women are often different creatures than pornographic characters and personae. For misogynists and sexist men to assume that real women shouldn't be upset by being confronted with a lot of explicit sexual imagery (especially of the degrading type in the presentation) is typical.
I hope Mr. Hoss comes to understand that. So if Mr. Hoss continues to insist that he's not a misogynistic and sexist man, at least I hope he eventually sees that he's behaving enough like one that it's impossible for those of us following the conversation to tell.
Hoss, thanks for bringing the edge and shaking things up here. My opinion is that everyone is too uptight here. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. What one finds offensive, others may not and who are these people to determine the definition of offensiveness, hate and sexism anyway? I didn't realize we were the national authority here. There is a lot of anger spewing around here and it doesn't make things better. I'm finding more negativity and hate in this message board than in anything Hoss said. Again, nobody is addressing the amount of alcohol available prior to these sessions. When you put a loaded gun in someone's hand with the safety off, you can't guarantee the results. If you want a conservative conference, then set the town with dress code, no swearing allowed and no alcohol and tell this to the presenters ahead of time!!
Implicit in my utopian vision outlined above, is the idea that no perspective absolutely "wins" in this world, that would run counter to inclusiveness. Inclusiveness does not mean that the underdog gets their turn being the overdog for a while. It means that we cultivate a culture where we can openly express our views, and that all participant have good faith to hear and be heard around those concerns.
So long as anyone brings to this discourse the expectation that anyone gets to "win" in absolute terms, then there will always be that element of blood-lust mixed in. Remember, it is always better to be in a world where there is the possibility of being offended, and to have the ability to express your views, and to have boundaries and guidelines redrawn in the ever evolving social contract, than to create a rigid work where one point of view dictates what can or cannot ultimately be said, in order to try to protect one or two narrow interests. The fabric of human life is far too complex -- even around a relatively well defined domain such as gender politics -- for any type of absolutist "Ten Commandments" to be written. There are of course limits to what I am saying. There are some things that are wrong absolutely and must be policed. Racist hate groups for example need to be policed, period, because they are in essence murderous organizations. And most people would agree that murderousness is a bad thing. I will buy into that. The fact that there are a few absolute wrongs is why you will see some commentators hasten to draw parallels between this presentation and more extreme offenses. Someone who used the term "rape" as a parallel to this presentation is frankly insulting those of us who know what being on the receiving end of rape is really like. I could be wrong, but I have a very hard time imagining an actual rape victim using that word to describe anything that could happen in a professional conference. I could be wrong, but I personally never would. No one will wake up in the middle of the night in terror or have chronic intimacy problems because of something that a presenter at a technology conference does on stage. If you did not get that the first time, read it again, and please don’t use the word rape in this context, if you do not mind. Find a more proportionate parallel.
Also someone who says that the days of "Mad Men" -- referring to the tv show set in a period in the 60's where misogyny was the norm -- is, in my view, doing a disservice to the memory of women who actually lived in the hell that must have been that life. Back then men could physically violate you in the work place, and your career could be in jeopardy if you spoke out. Granted there are still bad things that go on. But we are a million miles away from the days of Mad Men on the whole, and we should keep that in mind before we appropriate the oppression of others, who lived it for real, and fought the battles they fought so that we can have the protections that we do, some decades later.
Ok that is my rant du jour.
I work with a great group of men and it's not always easy working in a male-dominating field. Hoss Gifford certainly didn't do anyone any favors and no woman with any self-respect would think highly of his presentation. I can't imagine his wife and daughters would approve of his actions or presentation. And if he's so under the influence of drugs that he can't think straight... why was he on stage?
Should he be physically threatened or harmed? Absolutely not. Should he be asked back to flashbelt? ABSOLUTELY NOT. He's an embarrassment to the flash community. Anyone in support of his degrading presentation should be ashamed of themselves.
Or, even more profoundly, how would he feel if those images were of his daughters (when they're grown) or his wife? Furthermore, as a rape survivor, I can say that images like that are extremely triggering to me; it's one thing for them to exist on the Internet, where I can install ad blocking software and avoid it, but to be in a situation where it's foisted upon me? I've gone home and cut my arms to bits multiple times after seeing things like this, and it's a shame that Hoss doesn't seem to understand even remotely the seriousness of what he's done.
Also, I find the cries of "prude!" and comparisons to Europe to be disingenuous at best. I lived in Europe for a year and have spent many vacations there, and I think it's worth noting that England is not a particularly enlightened place when it comes to gender -- they have the second-lowest rate of rape convictions in the EU, and they've recently found that the police there treat car theft more seriously than rape. So really, not a good point to make. Also, if we're going to talk about not being prudes, where are the pictures of men's penises, of women coming on men's faces, and flash movies of men having sex with the user? In general, we don't see men's bodies being used in this way, yet the very same people who would be eeked out by such things are extremely quick to scream that other people are prudes when they speak up against the objectification of a group of people who are very commonly raped because of how people perceive their bodies. (One obvious perception being that all women are ready for sex at all times, a view certainly endorsed by such presentations, and while it might not necessarily encourage people to go out and commit rape, it certainly affects the outcome of rape cases, where girls as young as five years old are suggested to have led the man on.)
"If you knew this guy personally..." Honestly? Shouldn't a public speaker be the first to know that they have all of those few minutes to present themselves, that those are all they've realistically got to make an impression? If he's not taking that seriously and would instead sink to the "if you gave me more time" argument, as is clearly the intent of these long justifications, he shouldn't be taking on such tasks to begin with.
Again, I'm coming from a purely factual standpoint as I experience and see things. When I look in a newspaper day to day and see a woman with her top off, that is a fact that the newspaper (I want to say it is called Sun but am not 100% sure) shows topless women. That is a fact and I can prove it.
The bottom line with me on this subject is that there is a lot of anger in words and tone. Everybody is outraged and upset and is not going to tolerate it, blah blah blah... My hope is that many people who are this angry will work harder at letting this anger go for their own physical and mental health, and not use this board to further spew negativity, but rather work on themselves to be good, truthful, non-gossiping, non-violent, and internally peaceful. I'm not a religious fanatic by any means either. Something just clicked for me one day and I let all of what happened to me through the years go. It doesn't mean I condone it, rather I don't hold on to it. The only person you can ultimately control is yourself.
This is not just about Hoss. I think he is probably a decent guy.
It is about the larger conversation about what we tolerate. Hoss, and Flashbelt for that matter are a barometer of where we are today, this very day, with this topic, in context of a work/professional setting.
The reason this happened in the first place is that it was demanded by the market.
Out of context? Yes. Was I also pissed off? Yes. Are we really examining the cause in continually pinpointing Hoss? I don't think so. It is a much bigger issue, in which I think Hoss has no choice, and is willing to continue talking about with us, as part of the interactive community.
This conversation is the important part, to find out where we are, who we are, and where we want to go.
Thanks for your responses Hoss, Dave, Meghan, Nancy, and of course, Courtney.
You have all evoked change, and are a vital part of moving forward.
I don't think anyone involved in this conversation is leaving with the same viewpoint that they arrived with, and that is a good thing.
If positive change and a healthy dose of understanding from all sides isn't the result, then this was all a waste of time.
Also, I have to say I think it's extremely ill done of you to tell a rape victim to just get over it already -- which is basically what you said; your experience is not the same as others, and like it or not, emotions ARE going to come into this because of the nature of what was done. It's simply unrealistic and naive to assume otherwise.
A lifelong belief of mine is that it's never the job of the observer to voice the experiences of the observed. I am glad he's reading these comments, taking part in this discussion, and I absolutely do not condone calls for his physical harm -- but I am more glad that the discussion is drawing in so many other people. Thank you, Geek Girls, and would you care to join DevChix? We'd love to have you.
http://www.devchix.com/
However, judging me - "it's ill of me", "unrealistic", and "naive" - that's judging and labeling me. You should ask yourself why it is ok to respond this way. And who are you to compare my life situations to others? You don't know the extent of what I went through and how it impacted me.
Again people - this is what is wrong with our society. We judge, we blame, we label. Take personal accountability for yourself and ask yourself why you think it is ok to live this way. It's just perpetuating that which is already the main issue here to begin with. And I don't believe it is unrealistic to ask this of people. It's the easy way out to label someone. Our society trains us this way as children ("he's stupid", "she's ugly" and ask we get older it moves to racist and sexist labels) and continues to perpetuate into adulthood. And so our society continues to behave this way and judge.
It's not unrealistic to make a change, you just have to be willing and put the time in to do so.
To those that seem to think that Gifford is NOT a misogynist, I challenge you to update your understanding of sexism and respect. To those who continue uphold Gifford's "apology", I challenge you to update and refine your definition of "professional." Hoss Gifford is neither professional or respectful, and he is undeserving of our forgiveness or respect.
Shame on Hoss Gifford.
I found the presentation to be quite offensive. This does not have anything to do with being 'thick skinned' or not.
Perhaps in a healthier society being thick skinned would not be necessary for anyone attending an IT conference.
The responses that cry 'prude' are really weak and dodge the issue best. As one commenter already said, how about a presentation with a male being depicted in the same manner? Our unhealthy attitudes towards women are what allow this to happen with a female being the subject of the presentation, and ensure that a male would never be put in the same position.
It is disheartening to see that this is what new technology is being used for.
It seems that Mr. Gifford is so immersed in the pervasive misogyny that is our reality that he is not able to see it for what it is. Thus he will not be able to give a 'sincere' apology as he has no insight that there is even a problem.
David Letterman, June 15, 2009: "Well, my responsibility – I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future."
LOL! Yet somehow my experience isn't factual, but yours is? That's just ridiculous, I'm sorry. You also still haven't answered why all these images are of women, the less powerful group in society, and not of men. (And let's face it, we live in a society where nakedness codes for powerlessness -- think images of fully dressed masters with half or mostly naked slaves, or that movie that I can't remember from this past winter that had a poster to that effect, with the powerful lead character fully clothed in the middle and two naked, slave-like images on either side of him. It's too bad that it's like this, but it is.)
And frankly, if you were at Flashbelt, I highly doubt you have any training in psychology, which means it's highly dangerous for you to sit around dispensing uneducated, froo-frooey advice to rape survivors about "letting go" just because you woke up one day feeling better -- which is wonderful, but honestly is not a very common response for survivors of ANY trauma, thus expecting it of everyone is highly irresponsible. Everybody has a different path to recovery, and attitudes like yours only make the healing process more difficult for some of us.
Also, telling somebody that how they feel about their experience is wrong is horrible, I'm sorry. And FYI, I have lasting physical effects from being raped -- how am I supposed to just get over it as you expect when every move I make causes pain and reminds me of what happened? This is why you shouldn't presume to judge other people's experiences. You'll only cause hurt and alienation every time.
And finally, I dated a British man for quite a while. British people are well aware of Americans' attitudes toward images like this. Hoss wasn't simply ignorant of them, he just didn't care and ran with an opportunity to further his career through the principle of no publicity being bad publicity. His non-apology proves that this was most likely his intent.
-------------------------
"We can't control the conversation" but we can certainly frame it.
See, here's the thing with whether he should have known it would be offensive on this or any other continent: he knew it was in the realm of offensive, not risque, not softcore material. He knew this from the rating of the movies where he got all of these ideas: X. XXX. Adult. Porn. No serious newspaper anywhere in the world would print an image of a man coming on a woman's face on page 3. Further yes he should have known it'd be offensive to many, most women - not that it necessarily would be in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but who cares. These women were _not in_ the privacy of their own bedrooms. That's the whole point. They were at a work gathering, and in a circumstance where men out numbered women something like 100 to 1.
The fact that sex gets used as a weapon against women isn't up for debate. It doesn't need to be supported by the specific experience of any woman present at this conference or any other. The fact that tech conferences are severely gender unbalanced at this moment in time isn't up for debate either. To use male-dominating-women sexual material in such circumstances is a form of oppression. It privileges male hetero experience at the expense of women. It is a sexual experience without consent. It ghettoizes the few women in the room, and it sends a "men in technology ghettoize women" message to the world at large.
But, the question of whether it's OK to offend women in the service of pleasing men IS up for debate. This material was a selling point. Presumably it pleases the majority of men without offending too many others, and draws an audience for the conference (though "presumably" is clearly the key word in that sentence). And what we women are doing by protesting it is saying "Make room. We're here. We have different experiences than you do specifically because of our gender; your specifically (hetero) gendered experience is no longer the only one to be catered to here." And all of the people who are in support of this are doing it to create an arena where the intellectual values of the tech community - openness to new ideas, defensible-not-dictated structures - extend to its social behaviors as well. No ghettos in technology.
Things are changing, plain and simple. What does the tech community tolerate? If the guy had no reason to expect he'd get any pushback, can we blame him? To which I answer: this is your pushback. Expect it next time. And yes we can blame him, because even if there were only 8 women in the room this is still 2009 in the US, but I'm not really concerned about that. What's exciting is this. This conflict, this discussion, these growing pains. This is how blanket acceptance is pulled apart. This is how the tech community becomes more than a boy's club, how it begins to reflect the democratizing world it is helping create.
1. Booing
Talks of this nature have received cheers. There is no reason why they can't receive boos. The culture could be changed so that speakers of this nature would expect to be booed by a significant proportion of the audience. Before that point, just a few boos would make the point. I don't except women who feel threatened in this audience to boo solo, of course. But there are women and men who could boo. Another good idea mentioned in another comment is for someone to go to the microphone and say that this is not appropriate. Members of the audience could respond supportively.
2. Code of Conduct
The conference should have a code of conduct that speakers agree to adhere to. A breach of the code results in immediate removal from the conference. Past offenders will have their material reviewed before it is presented.
If 2 is seen as too much censorship, then as a fallback, I propose more clearly stating what is going on, so attendees know what to expect, 2b:
2b Sexually explicit events:
I take Hoss' point that context is important and his suggestion of presenting in a bar. However, his material is not appropriate for a bar. A strip club is the public venue suitable for the sort of material he presented. If this was made clear in the conference publicity (what have you got to hide?), attendees would be aware of the culture to expect at the conference. Women are not banned from strip clubs, but know what sort of atmosphere to expect. It would be clear that women were not welcome at some events (clear to women anyway, if not all of the men).
Employers would also know what sort of events they were sending their employees to. In my case, I would be a risk of breaching my work place's code of conduct (Australian Government) and I would not attend such a conference.
I would hope that conferences adopting 2b would receive geek community pressure to adopt 2.
My views are not necessarily those of my employer.
"Gosh, no one told me that showing vaginas at a professional conference was wrong." "Gee, everyone says they love me."
What are you 12 years old?
Women are half the population. At least half of us don't want to see a vagina at a professional conference anymore than you want to see a photo of a sweaty guy in latex with a hardon at a professional conference. Nothing wrong with it, but that's not what we paid for.
If you are comfortable waiting around for the world to tell you exactly what is ok and what is not ok, there are actually books and classes you can take to learn how not to offend people. Or you could just wake up, look around, and grow up.
-I understand the lack of feedback. But,
-that's no excuse for the pictures in the slideshow. humor doesn't need to be crass or sexist. There is no excuse.
This is the saddest, most pathetic thing - and from his "apology" you can see it: if no-one had complained he would have thought nothing was wrong. I think he behaved like this in the mistaken belief that others were as vulgar and juvenile as him, and to disguise a lack of any substantial content. Let's hope we won't be seeing the guy at any further conferences until he has properly grown up - and got something useful to say.
Hopefully the Flash on the beach conference will learn from this. Last year I was shocked that they had hired a stripper for the official party.
If you want to push the envelope, by all means do so, but do not pretend that sexual imagery or crude commentary are a novel or legitimate way to do so.
<a href="http://www.freeipod.me.uk">Free iPod</a>