Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy
Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 25 July 2015 15:13 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2C21A87E7 for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YvWiKnHy6De6 for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 542DD1A8788 for <93attendees@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81C0DA007A; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.218] (71.233.41.235) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:13:09 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1507250637550.854@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:13:07 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B7089F55-1901-4983-B7E6-59B63EA17762@nominum.com>
References: <28B1F49A-AAE4-429F-B70E-6783040FE829@spirent.com> <BN1PR06MB4371C7F6FE511FAD63C2FE8A8810@BN1PR06MB437.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <79BC3C72-BE65-40D6-86F4-16E3FF59FBED@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507251218170.11810@uplift.swm.pp.se> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1507250637550.854@bofh.nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/93attendees/zKOC045vWSjZBZ8FmKtxAKahK84>
Cc: "93attendees@ietf.org" <93attendees@ietf.org>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy
X-BeenThere: 93attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 93 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <93attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/93attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:93attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:13:11 -0000
Has it occurred to any of you who are flashing the term “booth babes” as if it were neutral that it is itself in fact just as misogynistic as anything else being said here? I agree with Randy that we should drop this discussion, but if you must continue to blather on about it, please at least don’t use the term “booth babes” as if it were a valid way to classify women while at the same time accusing others of misogyny. If this comment feels unfair, please consider that nobody is perfect, and everybody has a bit of internalized misogyny because we (most if not all of us) live in misogynistic cultures, some more so, some less so, but all to some extent. So the fact that I have just used the term “misogyny” in a way that might refer to you, the reader, does not mean that I intend to shame you or put you down. It just means that on a very practical level, if you want to talk about misogyny, you need to do a little reflection first, and maybe engage in the discussion in a less public forum.
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Rodriguez, Iben
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Lisa Lorenzin
- [93attendees] Name tags (was: IETF dress code pol… Lou Berger
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Stephen Farrell
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Michael StJohns
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Pat (Patricia) Thaler
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Warren Kumari
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Richard Scheffenegger
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Luis Balbinot
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Dave Taht
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Randy Bush
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Warren Kumari
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Warren Kumari
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Ted Lemon
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Ted Lemon
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Василий Долматов
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Randall Gellens
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Michal Krsek
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Dave Crocker
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Randy Bush
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Jane Coffin
- [93attendees] Thank you! (Was Re: IETF dress code… Lou Berger
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Niels ten Oever
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy John Scudder
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Leif Johansson
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Paul Wouters
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Samuel Weiler
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Ted Lemon
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Leif Johansson
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Daniel Harkins
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Jeff Haas
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Niels ten Oever
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Randall Gellens
- Re: [93attendees] IETF dress code policy Randall Gellens