This is an excellent point. The posted harrassment policy is completely gender neutral. If it's an automatic red flag for you, then you're bringing in your own assumptions about how men behave.
Well I've never heard men cry for a no harassment policy. Of course it is an attack against men - it implies that men need such policies and firm authority from the organizers to keep their lower instincts in check.
But you know - I only tell you how I feel about it. You don't have to care. It's just my personal opinion that to me it would be a turn off. Just like men playing kicker is apparently a turn off to women.
Granted even independent of gender it would be a turn off to me, because I don't want to mingle with people who need to be reminded of basic decency.
Edit: I can not reply further. I don't think you understand my point at all.
But to roll with your example: imagine you read an advertisement for a coding retreat, and the first line says "NO MURDER ALLOWED". Would that make you feel more safe or less safe about attending? Since you are hell bent on disagreeing with me you'll probably claim "more safe", but I am pretty sure in general it would come across a bit weird.
You don't need a "don't murder" policy, because it is implied. So why isn't "no harassment" implied? By stating it, you imply that it is not implied, so you are effectively saying your attendants are prone to harass people.
Does the word "men" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? Because HN's participants skew sharply male, so much so that the only reasonable interpretation of the pallid, sick-looking cast all your comments have taken on is that men do not agree with you.
That's your argument? I happen to be a man as well, and a HN participant.
Men believe all sorts of things. There are religious fanatics believing the most crazy stuff. That there are some men on HN believing x only shows that some men on HN believe x.
It's really funny how you all rush to vote me down only because I mentioned that some aspect of the conference is off putting to me. How is that different from women complaining that a picture of men playing kicker is off putting to them?
Don't worry, I have no interest to go to your conference of ignorant people. You can continue.
> Of course it is an attack against men - it implies that men need such policies and firm authority from the organizers to keep their lower instincts in check.
Are laws against murder similarly "attacks on men", who are disproportionately likely to commit them?
If you're not going to go around harassing people, you have little to fear from a no harassment policy. I don't personally need a "no murder" policy, but I'm fairly happy society has them.
You misunderstood: the policy is not an attack on men because it prevents them from harassing people. It's an attack on men because it's sole function is to cement prejudice against men. It's signalling "men are disproportionally likely to harass other people" (in your own words). That is in fact it's only function and the reason feminists want push it on conferences (it also signals "women are weak and need protection" a ka "women are victims"). It's function is to transport the feminist narrative.
As I wrote in my edit: why don't you have a "no murder" policy, and how would having one make you feel?
> As I wrote in my edit: why don't you have a "no murder" policy, and how would having one make you feel?
Murder is forbidden by law and thus already covered, whereas much of the harassment encountered in conferences is not actionable criminally (catcalling, comments about body parts, lewd jokes, pressure to have sex, etc.).
Is there a big problem with murders at hacker events? If there were, then maybe organisers would need to take steps to prevent them. There's certainly a problem with harassment, which is why it seems reasonable to have policies to mitigate that.
And that's where you are wrong - that's exactly the point of the policy, to support that narrative. In any case you don't need a policy to act against indecent behavior.
> In any case you don't need a policy to act against indecent behavior.
This may or may not be true. However, the existence of a policy is a good way to reassure people who are concerned about the problems that the policy addresses to have confidence that their concerns are going to be taken seriously.
> I don't want to mingle with people who need to be reminded of basic decency.
Neither do the people who are being harassed! Unfortunately, such people exist, and the policies are designed to address their actions and how they affect the people around them.
If saying "no harassment!" feels like an attack against men, that's an indication that you have a horribly negative outlook towards men.