Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
I just don't understand why people apparently can't see how this at least edges towards irresponsibility, even if you don't agree that it's slightly over the line or way over the line as others argue.

If I don't agree that it's over the line, how can I agree that it's irresponsible?

Quote: Original post by Osha
Oh sorry, the comment link didn't work. Search for the comment by "Iola"

Her comments begin on page three. She speaks of harassment in general, but not specific results of this ad campaign. I agree with her comments, but they don't address the factual matter of whether this advert campaign resulted in more harassment.

Quote: Original post by Osha
I realize I'm coming across as complaining, and I'm not trying to. Sorry for that.
As for addressing the underlying cause: It's so hard to get a good grip on the underlying cause <.< I could sit here and talk about pervasive sexism all day but that would get us *nowhere*. I do think one of the causes is that the field is so male dominiated, and this is somewhat of a self-perpetuating cycle.

You have every right to complain, so don't apologize. And don't keep quiet about pervasive sexism either. Iola sure didn't, and she shouldn't. She should make an issue of it and push for security improvements for the next CC. For example, how about a lifetime ban to CC for attendees who molest booth babes? A "grope and you're gone" policy. The Home Depot Center in Carson slapped a lifetime ban on a LA Galaxy fan who left the stands to confront David Beckham last week. The fan didn't get anywhere near Beckham, but he still got slapped down hard. If she can't get it event organizers to go for that, maybe a class action lawsuit on behalf of all booth babes is needed to get organizers (and EA's) attention. Corporations will pay attention when sexism costs them millions. Sexual harassment isn't all "quid pro quo", a "hostile work environment" qualifies too.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
The con-goers are insulted just as much as women are objectified in this scheme. "We're assuming most of you are pathetic enough to want to go on a date with a girl who is having dinner with you only to collect a paycheck."

Heh. You have no idea how pathetic enough Comic-Con attendees can be, apparently.

I think everyone needs to stop feeling so hypothetically insulted, personally. [smile]

My rational side is judging and mocking this guy for being pathetic.
But my libertarian side is saying "Good for him. Let him live his life however he wishes. You shouldn't judge someone for having weird habits & lifestyles."
And then my rational side says "fuck that, I'll judge anyone. This guy needs to get a life!"
And then my Kantian side argues that my judgement is a form of coercion which fails to respect the autonomy of his will, and any such coercion is morally wrong.

Haha, I'm conflicted. I really don't know what to think about this. Help?

My pragmatic side says he shouldn't be left alone at work on late shifts because he's probably cheating on pillow #1 with pillow #2 over there which could cause nasty findings for his colleagues

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
I wasn't saying that EA was so far out of line as to be doing anything illegal.

Then I don't understand why you introduced it.

Quote: My point about the law was that even the law recognizes that an inciter can bear some of the responsibility of the actions of the incitee. This was a meant as a general counterpoint to your general statement that "people should be able to think for themselves." My word for EA was "irresponsible", not "criminal".

It's not just that I think it's true in general, I think it very much applies to this incident. Something that I believe isn't the case with your legal argument.

Quote: They said "Commit acts of lust. Take pictures with us or any booth babe." By itself, this is open to interpretation if the taking of the picture of a booth babe is sufficient to qualify as an act of lust. In fact, I would say that it sounds like mere picture-taking is sufficient. But this is clearly a contest, to be won by "one hand-picked winner", not chosen at random. Presumably the judge(s) will be looking for some criteria, and the only hint of criteria they've given you is to be lustful in these pictures. That's where you get the incitement to sexual harassment.

Again, I think the jump from act of lust to sexual harassment is too big to hold EA accountable for any possible incidents. I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a lunatic somewhere out there who could interpret this as a invitation to sexual assault, but I couldn't hold anyone responsible for that.

Quote: Again, I consider this just one step over the irresponsible line and not that big of a deal, so anybody looking to vent against over-reaction can go look elsewhere. This doesn't demand a letter-writing campaign or a boycott or anything. I just don't understand why people apparently can't see how this at least edges towards irresponsibility, even if you don't agree that it's slightly over the line or way over the line as others argue.

I don't think you're overreacting, I'm just curious why you think they crossed the line, because I think they haven't. We can have a difference in opinion, I just like to understand your point of view. [smile]

Understanding Workplace Harassment

Quote:
...
Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed.

Examples of actions that may create sexual hostile environment harassment include:

* Leering, i.e., staring in a sexually suggestive manner
* Making offensive remarks about looks, clothing, body parts
* Touching in a way that may make an employee feel uncomfortable, such as patting, pinching or intentional brushing against another’s body
* Telling sexual or lewd jokes, hanging sexual posters, making sexual gestures, etc.
* Sending, forwarding or soliciting sexually suggestive letters, notes, emails, or images
...

That's for the USA. I don't know about other countries.

Quote: It's not just that I think it's true in general,

But you *do* think it's true as a general principle that people "should think for themselves" at all times in the sense that an inciter is absolved of any responsibility for the actions of those they incite, yes? Regardless of the severity or legality or illegality or level of irresponsibility of the action being incited? If yes, then you disagree with me and you disagree with the law. Such disagreement is not illegal of course, but if you have at least a fair amount of respect for Western law, perhaps the fact that you disagree with it might give you cause to reconsider. If no, then I say that you have an arbitrary criterion for for absolving inciters of any responsibility, and that you should consider that blame for non-criminal acts can be shared by an inciter just as easily as it can for criminal acts.

Quote:

Quote: They said "Commit acts of lust. Take pictures with us or any booth babe." By itself, this is open to interpretation if the taking of the picture of a booth babe is sufficient to qualify as an act of lust. In fact, I would say that it sounds like mere picture-taking is sufficient. But this is clearly a contest, to be won by "one hand-picked winner", not chosen at random. Presumably the judge(s) will be looking for some criteria, and the only hint of criteria they've given you is to be lustful in these pictures. That's where you get the incitement to sexual harassment.

Again, I think the jump from act of lust to sexual harassment is too big

This is the crux of the matter. Let's get specific in a minute. But first, let me remind you that the point is to win a lust contest, so the lustier the better. So... give me some examples how how you could hope to win this lust contest involving a booth babe and a photograph, yet avoid sexual harassment. I can't think of any, and perhaps that is just because I'm a dirty person, but to be fair I'll provide some examples of the sexual harassment I'm picturing (obviously requiring a partner in crime to take the photo): 1) There's the obvious fondling of the bosom and groping of the tush. 2) Pointing or waving a penis stand-in in font of her face and as close to mouth as you can get 3) Getting her hand on your crotch 4) Licking any exposed female skin you can get to.

Now, you could say that it's possible that a booth girl could consent to any of the above, but I would counter that it would most likely be out of fear of losing work, and thus constitute sexual harassment. Walk around the streets with a friend and a camera and see how often such requests for pictures are honored.

So, how would you go about winning the lustful photo contest without humiliating any booth girls in the process? Please give as many specific examples as you care to provide. I suspect you're going to have to stretch a bit to label your examples "lust", but we'll see.

Quote: Again, I think the jump from act of lust to sexual harassment is too big to hold EA accountable for any possible incidents.

Neither do I believe they should be held accountable, or I would not have taken such pains in this thread to keep emphasizing that I'm calling EA just barely over the line of irresponsibility, not legality. Yes, it's irresponsible, but it is not feasible to demand accountability of every little irresponsible thing that people do.

Quote: I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be a lunatic somewhere out there who could interpret this as a invitation to sexual assault, but I couldn't hold anyone responsible for that

But it doesn't take an obviously aberrant lunatic to be prodded by things like this. You've got a room full of virtually all males where a good chunk of the female population is there solely as objects in the first place, and plenty of males already have an unhealthy attitude toward women to begin with, and then you give them a lust contest. There's no guarantee that your lust contest is going to cause problems, but it's not so far-fetched to consider that this contest has the potential to at the very least make life more uncomfortable for these girls than necessary, if not encourage true harassment. I told you the first few things that came to my mind when I tried to figure out how to win the contest, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a lunatic, I simply have the sense to not act on such thoughts. It is irresponsible to encourage people to shuck such restraint in the given setting.

Quote:

Quote: Again, I consider this just one step over the irresponsible line and not that big of a deal, so anybody looking to vent against over-reaction can go look elsewhere. This doesn't demand a letter-writing campaign or a boycott or anything. I just don't understand why people apparently can't see how this at least edges towards irresponsibility, even if you don't agree that it's slightly over the line or way over the line as others argue.

I don't think you're overreacting, I'm just curious why you think they crossed the line, because I think they haven't. We can have a difference in opinion, I just like to understand your point of view. [smile]

I wasn't necessarily expecting you specifically to say that I was, but this community in general often needs a position spelled out repeatedly before they give up on the straw men.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on July 30, 2009 11:10:36 AM]

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Now, you could say that it's possible that a booth girl could consent to any of the above, but I would counter that it would most likely be out of fear of losing work, and thus constitute sexual harassment. Walk around the streets with a friend and a camera and see how often such requests for pictures are honored.

You'd be shocked what you can get a man/woman on the street to do if you're charming and non-threatening enough, and especially if you have a goofy-but-plausible story. I've convened spontaneous Pat Benatar fan clubs on the streets of Manhattan before.

Quote: So, how would you go about winning the lustful photo contest without humiliating any booth girls in the process? Please give as many specific examples as you care to provide. I suspect you're going to have to stretch a bit to label your examples "lust", but we'll see.

I would appear to do some of the things you mentioned without actually doing them. Isn't this the basis of dumb photographs everywhere, including the variety in which one subject is unaware? (Guy stands behind girl and pretends to be spanking her, buddy takes photo.) Why do you assume there has to be actual contact to create an image? Did these kids actually spank their teacher? Is this guy at all aware of the guy behind him? Is this guy aware of the maniac face next to him?

To me, the truly clever entries will rely on subverting the message - taking a picture of a booth babe mustering false enthusiasm during an official promo for a product, with your friend positioned just so on the other side so as to suggest some inappropriate/lusty behavior is genius. At the end of the day, it seems like the vociferous critics simply lack imagination - you can't conceive of any way to create an interesting image without pawing at the women.
A limitation in your own ability to interpret or conceive alternate readings of the material would appear to be the source of the insistent that it is irresponsible and inappropriate. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact that there are multiple reasonable interpretations that fall outside your bounds tempers my outrage.

Sexual harassment is serious business, and completely unacceptable. I just don't think this ad was even a step in that direction.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
To me, the truly clever entries will rely on subverting the message

I didn't ask what was clever, I asked how you would try to win the contest. If you think that subverting the message is going to win it, then fine, but most people aren't going to think that, and for good reason.

Quote: taking a picture of a booth babe mustering false enthusiasm during an official promo for a product, with your friend positioned just so on the other side so as to suggest some inappropriate/lusty behavior is genius. At the end of the day, it seems like the vociferous critics simply lack imagination - you can't conceive of any way to create an interesting image without pawing at the women.

Speaking for myself, what I lack is camera skills. You apparently concede that at least the illusion of pawing at a woman is what you would go for, but then condemn others for not being able to think of anything else. So you create the illusion rather than actually doing it and then sprinkle it with irony. At its base, it's still lust = pawing, so shove your hypocritical condemnation. As for the illusion vs the actual pawing - well that's a decent point. I don't know how many con attendees put that much thought into photography that it's something that they would try, but that is a good alternative to harassment. It certainly doesn't settle the bigger question, though.

Quote: A limitation in your own ability to interpret or conceive alternate readings of the material would appear to be the source of the insistent that it is irresponsible and inappropriate.

You really reveal your lack of wit in your haste to condescend. I take one point of view and you take the other. This is all you need to tell the world that I reached my position without considering any others (I could point to previous passages of mine in this thread to prove otherwise, but not for your sake. You're as hopeless as ever. On the chance that anybody cares what I'm talking about - PM me), while your position can only be the result of careful consideration of all sides. Bullshit. You are not especially gifted with reason, regardless of your constant self-promotion. You are not the free-thinking ideal we all need to aspire to, you are the petty con man we need to shun. Any monkey filled with enough pretension and with access to Google could provide us with most of your insights and exemplary rationality.

You need to rage against rage, so you label Osha as exceptionally angry when it's a stretch to call her tone even mildly angry. You need to play Dutch Uncle, so out of the blue you decide that she doesn't understand that she doesn't have a right to not be offended. And now this shit with me. You always hypocritically lecture the community on the importance of rational and productive discussion, but you don't practice it yourself. You are not here to engage anyone. The rest of us exist merely to serve as props to hang your straw men on.

(EDIT: I see red sometimes when people play games as Oluseyi does and don't think as clearly as I should. In truth, his bullshit is worse than I originally thought. Aside from what I pointed out above, his point about about multiple interpretations is irrelevant since we both had the same damn interpretation. Different proposals to act on that interpretation, yes, but it was the same interpretation. He needs to take some of that energy he expends in trying to figure out what a sophisticated person might say and direct it toward being relevant to the discussion. And I need to not let these half-witted weasels get to me.)

Yes, I conceded above you had a point. Not a case proving-point, but a point nonetheless about photography. Unfortunately, you never return the favor, and there's the danger honest people run into when dealing with your type. The one time out of twenty you have something to say, I will concede it, but you invariably ignore it when the situation is reversed (other than the occasional passive-aggressive "Fine - you win." Nothing says integrity like suddenly becoming dismissive of a point when you realize you can no longer defend it). So you can say to yourself "Even this asshole agrees with me once in a while, but I've never had to concede to him. I must be hot shit.", thus feeding your ego and encouraging more bullshit posts.

Quote: but the fact that there are multiple reasonable interpretations

Hilarious! Where in this thread have you even hinted that any interpretation other than your own was reasonable? I know you're used to dealing with fools, but does this kind of thing really work for you? When you decide that it's time to promote your own mythical open-mindedness in service of slandering me for the lack of same, then and only then do you acknowledge that interpretations other than your own are reasonable. You've already had two days to do that, but didn't. I'm really curious who here doesn't see right through you.

Plus, you now say that interpretations besides yours are reasonable, presumably including my own very moderate position (otherwise you're lying about multiple reasonable interpretations, since mine is just one step above yours), but you also just claimed that I came to my interpretation through unreasonable means. You can't even be consistent from one breath to the next.

(EDIT: Again, this is even worse since our interpretations were the same. But mine and only mine was arrived at through irrational means!)

Quote: that fall outside your bounds tempers my outrage.

Good Lord... my outrage (granting your misleading term momentary legitimacy) wasn't tempered? WanMaster, this is exactly why I might have seemed overly defensive earlier about over-reaction. You spell it out and spell it out and it's never enough. I'm outraged now, but that's only at Oluseyi pulling his same old antics. This is the new and improved Oluseyi he keeps bragging about - he's got his outbursts under control, but he'll be damned before before he opens his mind or values productive discussion over trying to belittle others to prop up his own fragile ego. Keep bullying others for their supposed lack of substantive contribution, but you're projecting. It's rare for you to contribute anything more than your ego and Google results dressed up in pseudo-intellectual claptrap that impresses the rubes.

I'm out of here. I have no interest in whatever old lies or new lies or half-truths he, or any of the usual suspects, are going to respond with. I was looking forward to what WanMaster had to say to my last post, but I'm not going to chance even a casual perusal of any more of Oluseyi's bullshit. Let him find a submissive GDNetter to be the whipping boy for his ego.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on August 1, 2009 12:17:42 PM]

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
To me, the truly clever entries will rely on subverting the message - taking a picture of a booth babe mustering false enthusiasm during an official promo for a product, with your friend positioned just so on the other side so as to suggest some inappropriate/lusty behavior is genius.

So Comic Con, a festival presumably for comic fans of all stripes, should have been full of guys trying to subvert each and every photo opportunity into some sort of lewd situation? And that's if they were being "clever"?

And you're wondering why people might find this objectionable?