Re: [diversity] Feedback, including a piece of friendly and hopefully constructive criticism
Hi Theresa, Thank you for your feedback - I am, above all, really happy that we are finally starting to see some engagement at the RIPE Meetings on our D&I efforts (both from the Diversity TF and also the RIPE NCC). I am really happy to also see people active in the D&I circles coming to the meetings! I'm replying here as myself and not a TF member. It can be a bit of a gray area, since I'm involved in the TF initiatives too. The WiT Lunch is not a TF initiative, just to clarify. It was initially proposed by our board member, Salam Yamout (who is the woman that you mentioned from Lebanon that spoke at the mic after my presentation). Replying inline now... On 21/10/2018 11:27, Theresa Enghardt wrote:
Dear Diversity Taskforce,
thank you so much for your work.
RIPE 77 was my first RIPE meeting and I really enjoyed it. It feels nice to come into a community and see that the diversity work is already being done, so I don't have to be the one to do the heavy lifting. (A bit of personal context: I do diversity-related work in other communities, e.g., at the Chaos Communcation Congress.)
Thank you in particular for the amazing presentation at the plenary on Friday.
That said, I would like to provide some friendly and hopefully constructive criticsm in the following, rather long, e-mail. This is NOT a call-out of any individual person, but rather something I'm asking you as a group to consider. Feel free to pass it on to people not on your mailing list, but then without my name, please.
1.) Please do not issue a general invitation for people to talk to women about their experience at RIPE.
I was at RIPE to talk about technology, about my work, not about feminism. Being asked about feminism in a work context generates a lot of stress for me (details on that below, if you are interested). I would rather have people talk to me about my work. I assume this is true for many other women as well. When I said "talk to women about their experiences", my intention was not that it be about their experiences with being othered, but just to speak to them about their experiences period. About their work, yes. About their aspirations in their career, about the projects they're excited about. But also about the barriers they face that their male
colleagues may not have any understanding of. It was certainly not meant as an open invitation for men to ask women about how they're being harrassed or discriminated against. It was related to my previous slides of what it means to be a male ally, and that the first step to advocacy is awareness.
I want men to start recognising and advocating for the work that their non-male colleagues are doing so that hopefully we see more representation at the meetings, on the stage, etc.
If you want to encourage people to learn more about women's experiences in tech, how about "Consider reading up on this, here's some links, and here are some people who volunteered to answer questions"?
If you must invite people to talk to women they know about their personal experience, please at least include a very prominent reminder that not every woman may be comfortable to talk about her experiences for many very valid reasons.
Some details about my own reasons, just to illustrate: I personally did not have any experience of harassment or discrimination at RIPE that I recall. I'm sure this is the case for a number of other women as well. Hearing "talk to a woman about her experience here", for me, implies that you expect that everyone has experienced discrimination AND is comfortable to talk about it. It also feels a little bit infantilizing to me, like, "You poor women have it so bad here". This is simply not true. I know that there's still lots of problems, so I could talk about other women's experiences, or about feminism in general. However, I have been "the angry feminist" in a work context before. Even with coworkers that I really like, if I disagree with them on some feminist topic, it can create a lot of stress and a feeling of alienation on both sides. In addition, I fear that having a public stance on feminism could damage my future career. I don't feel like it's on me to "get over this", but for the culture to change. Your work is an important part of that change, and I appreciate it.
2.) Please do not misuse the term "intersectionality".
(Relevant context for the following section: I'm white. Please consider reading the writings by black feminists on this topic.) If I recall correctly, in the plenary the term was used to mean "we do things for women and then other minorities / everyone benefits from it". This is not what intersectionality means. In fact, it's literally the opposite.
In our first diversity workshop before the TF was formed, we understood the phrase to mean how the struggle to combat sexism and racism (and other forms of discrimination) intersect. Yes, Crenshaw's original definition of the phrase has taken on ambiguous meaning over the years and I should have chosen a better phrase there. However, her original intention of the word to frame the struggle that someone belonging to more than one marginalised group faces is still relevant for our diversity efforts I think.
The term "intersectionality" was created by Black feminists
Kimberlé Crenshaw
to mean that black women are discriminated in different ways than white women. They experience racism AND sexism, so their experience of racism is different from the racism black men experience, and their experience of sexism is different from the sexism that white women experience. This means that if you just "do things for women" without looking at other forms of discrimination, you end up doing things that mostly support white women, and leave other women behind. Similar points apply to trans women (who also experience transmisogyny), disabled women (who also experience ableism), and so on.
I agree that we need to tackle diversity from every angle and I know that we will get there. We are working within an almost 30yo community built on 'legacy' and achieving the change I believe we need to see means building the foundation for inclusiveness of women, period. Once we do that, then I hope that it'll be easier (and quicker) to improve the meeting and community experience for all under-represented groups.
I think that the remark at the mic by the woman from the middle-east, whose name I sadly don't recall,
was exactly spot on. Different discriminations exist, they are sometimes combined, and working against them does not have to be mutually exclusive.
Do not assume that all women need or want the same. Do not assume that there is a universal female experience or perspective. There is not. The "universal" female perspective is usually the white, cis, non-disabled female perspective. (Such as my own, technically and ironically, as I have all those privileges.) I fully agree here. And while we don't aim to speak on behalf of all women, I also don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of another group. Making our meetings more inclusive for women will (I hope) make it also more inclusive for non-white/cis/non-disabled women. We have to start somewhere. It's not a bad thing to have privilege, but one should be aware of it, one should question it, and one should actively give space to others who do not have this privilege. In that sense, I try my best to be a cis ally to trans* people, a white ally to non-white people, and a non-disabled ally to disabled people.
In summary, it's fine you focus on women, but please be aware that there's different kinds of women. It's fine if you pick your battles. It's fine that you cannot do everything at once. I'm simply asking you to read up on the term "intersectionality" and to not misuse it.
3.) Please try to avoid gender binarism.
I heard gender-binarist language (e.g., "both men and women" used to mean everyone) a lot this week. I don't know if there's any openly non-binary people in the community, but given that your registration form includes a non-binary option, perhaps there's a way to find out if anybody was brave enough to out themself on that form. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they exist. There was one person that identified themselves as non-binary.
You don't necessarily have to educate everyone about this stuff, at least not for me. To me, just being conscious of your language, like saying "Dear gentlepeople" instead of "Dear ladies and gentlemen", makes a big difference. Also, consider having T-shirts in "fitted" and "unisex" cut instead of "woman's" and "man's" cut. Having some gender-neutral bathrooms in addition to gendered bathrooms might also help to make the space more inclusive to non-binary people, and maybe also to binary trans* people. Funny about the t-shirts, we have had the opposite feedback from women in the community. For this meeting, we had unisex t-shirts, but previous meetings we've had different cuts for m/f (which was requested from our female attendees). We can certainly be more inclusive in how we label
Salam Yamout the shirts at the table though (although, annoyingly for this meeting we had two colours of unisex shirts and some people were still referring to the burgundy shirts as the "girl" shirts :/). For the bathrooms, I will certainly pass this feedback back to our meeting organisation team. Not sure what is/isn't possible given that the meetings are always in hotels.
Finally, a but of positive feedback again:
I think the discussion on (male) allies is a really good and important one, I was really pleased to see it. I've met lots of male allies at RIPE, even those who aren't active advocates and don't call themselves feminist (yet?), but who encourage me in my work and mentor me. If some of these men become more feminist, that's really awesome, and thank you for working on that.
Thank you Theresa for your valuable feedback and for engaging in the diversity discussions!
Hope to see you at a RIPE meeting next year!
Best, Theresa
Hi all, About the T-shirts, Amanda, I don't think Theresa was suggesting to have only "unisex" T-shirts - she suggeted having two types - "fitted" and "unisex". Maybe I am wrong about this, but I haven't heard any "opposite feedback" (coming from women, presumably?) suggesting we should only have one type of T-shirts for everybody... Unisex is not a mix between the male and female cut. The unisex cut is basically identical to the cut traditionally associated with men (same chest, waist, and hip measurements). Basically it's is giving everybody men's cut, but telling women to be happy about it, since it's labelled "unisex". I don't see why RIPE NCC should only offer "unisex", especially given the diversity efforts we are making. The biology of men and women is different. Women have breasts, smaller waist, bigger hips. That's why unisex (aka men's cut) does not fit women well. I support Theresa's suggestion to offer two cuts. As for the labeling, I also support labeling them "fitted" and "loose" (rather than "mens" and "womens") or any other way, so people can make up their mind themselves. In conclusion, I do not believe women should be happy with a staight cut, that doesn't fit their biology, simply because it is labelled "unisex". I think we should offer two cuts and lablel them in a gender-neutral way. My cents, Gergana PS: I'm glad that size XS was available this time around :) On 22/10/2018 12:20, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Hi Theresa,
Thank you for your feedback - I am, above all, really happy that we are finally starting to see some engagement at the RIPE Meetings on our D&I efforts (both from the Diversity TF and also the RIPE NCC). I am really happy to also see people active in the D&I circles coming to the meetings!
I'm replying here as myself and not a TF member. It can be a bit of a gray area, since I'm involved in the TF initiatives too.
The WiT Lunch is not a TF initiative, just to clarify. It was initially proposed by our board member, Salam Yamout (who is the woman that you mentioned from Lebanon that spoke at the mic after my presentation).
Replying inline now...
On 21/10/2018 11:27, Theresa Enghardt wrote:
Dear Diversity Taskforce,
thank you so much for your work.
RIPE 77 was my first RIPE meeting and I really enjoyed it. It feels nice to come into a community and see that the diversity work is already being done, so I don't have to be the one to do the heavy lifting. (A bit of personal context: I do diversity-related work in other communities, e.g., at the Chaos Communcation Congress.)
Thank you in particular for the amazing presentation at the plenary on Friday.
That said, I would like to provide some friendly and hopefully constructive criticsm in the following, rather long, e-mail. This is NOT a call-out of any individual person, but rather something I'm asking you as a group to consider. Feel free to pass it on to people not on your mailing list, but then without my name, please.
1.) Please do not issue a general invitation for people to talk to women about their experience at RIPE.
I was at RIPE to talk about technology, about my work, not about feminism. Being asked about feminism in a work context generates a lot of stress for me (details on that below, if you are interested). I would rather have people talk to me about my work. I assume this is true for many other women as well. When I said "talk to women about their experiences", my intention was not that it be about their experiences with being othered, but just to speak to them about their experiences period. About their work, yes. About their aspirations in their career, about the projects they're excited about. But also about the barriers they face that their male
colleagues may not have any understanding of. It was certainly not meant as an open invitation for men to ask women about how they're being harrassed or discriminated against. It was related to my previous slides of what it means to be a male ally, and that the first step to advocacy is awareness.
I want men to start recognising and advocating for the work that their non-male colleagues are doing so that hopefully we see more representation at the meetings, on the stage, etc.
If you want to encourage people to learn more about women's experiences in tech, how about "Consider reading up on this, here's some links, and here are some people who volunteered to answer questions"?
If you must invite people to talk to women they know about their personal experience, please at least include a very prominent reminder that not every woman may be comfortable to talk about her experiences for many very valid reasons.
Some details about my own reasons, just to illustrate: I personally did not have any experience of harassment or discrimination at RIPE that I recall. I'm sure this is the case for a number of other women as well. Hearing "talk to a woman about her experience here", for me, implies that you expect that everyone has experienced discrimination AND is comfortable to talk about it. It also feels a little bit infantilizing to me, like, "You poor women have it so bad here". This is simply not true. I know that there's still lots of problems, so I could talk about other women's experiences, or about feminism in general. However, I have been "the angry feminist" in a work context before. Even with coworkers that I really like, if I disagree with them on some feminist topic, it can create a lot of stress and a feeling of alienation on both sides. In addition, I fear that having a public stance on feminism could damage my future career. I don't feel like it's on me to "get over this", but for the culture to change. Your work is an important part of that change, and I appreciate it.
2.) Please do not misuse the term "intersectionality".
(Relevant context for the following section: I'm white. Please consider reading the writings by black feminists on this topic.) If I recall correctly, in the plenary the term was used to mean "we do things for women and then other minorities / everyone benefits from it". This is not what intersectionality means. In fact, it's literally the opposite.
In our first diversity workshop before the TF was formed, we understood the phrase to mean how the struggle to combat sexism and racism (and other forms of discrimination) intersect. Yes, Crenshaw's original definition of the phrase has taken on ambiguous meaning over the years and I should have chosen a better phrase there. However, her original intention of the word to frame the struggle that someone belonging to more than one marginalised group faces is still relevant for our diversity efforts I think.
The term "intersectionality" was created by Black feminists
Kimberlé Crenshaw
to mean that black women are discriminated in different ways than white women. They experience racism AND sexism, so their experience of racism is different from the racism black men experience, and their experience of sexism is different from the sexism that white women experience. This means that if you just "do things for women" without looking at other forms of discrimination, you end up doing things that mostly support white women, and leave other women behind. Similar points apply to trans women (who also experience transmisogyny), disabled women (who also experience ableism), and so on.
I agree that we need to tackle diversity from every angle and I know that we will get there. We are working within an almost 30yo community built on 'legacy' and achieving the change I believe we need to see means building the foundation for inclusiveness of women, period. Once we do that, then I hope that it'll be easier (and quicker) to improve the meeting and community experience for all under-represented groups.
I think that the remark at the mic by the woman from the middle-east, whose name I sadly don't recall,
was exactly spot on. Different discriminations exist, they are sometimes combined, and working against them does not have to be mutually exclusive.
Do not assume that all women need or want the same. Do not assume that there is a universal female experience or perspective. There is not. The "universal" female perspective is usually the white, cis, non-disabled female perspective. (Such as my own, technically and ironically, as I have all those privileges.) I fully agree here. And while we don't aim to speak on behalf of all women, I also don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of another group. Making our meetings more inclusive for women will (I hope) make it also more inclusive for non-white/cis/non-disabled women. We have to start somewhere. It's not a bad thing to have privilege, but one should be aware of it, one should question it, and one should actively give space to others who do not have this privilege. In that sense, I try my best to be a cis ally to trans* people, a white ally to non-white people, and a non-disabled ally to disabled people.
In summary, it's fine you focus on women, but please be aware that there's different kinds of women. It's fine if you pick your battles. It's fine that you cannot do everything at once. I'm simply asking you to read up on the term "intersectionality" and to not misuse it.
3.) Please try to avoid gender binarism.
I heard gender-binarist language (e.g., "both men and women" used to mean everyone) a lot this week. I don't know if there's any openly non-binary people in the community, but given that your registration form includes a non-binary option, perhaps there's a way to find out if anybody was brave enough to out themself on that form. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they exist. There was one person that identified themselves as non-binary.
You don't necessarily have to educate everyone about this stuff, at least not for me. To me, just being conscious of your language, like saying "Dear gentlepeople" instead of "Dear ladies and gentlemen", makes a big difference. Also, consider having T-shirts in "fitted" and "unisex" cut instead of "woman's" and "man's" cut. Having some gender-neutral bathrooms in addition to gendered bathrooms might also help to make the space more inclusive to non-binary people, and maybe also to binary trans* people. Funny about the t-shirts, we have had the opposite feedback from women in the community. For this meeting, we had unisex t-shirts, but previous meetings we've had different cuts for m/f (which was requested from our female attendees). We can certainly be more inclusive in how we label
Salam Yamout the shirts at the table though (although, annoyingly for this meeting we had two colours of unisex shirts and some people were still referring to the burgundy shirts as the "girl" shirts :/).
For the bathrooms, I will certainly pass this feedback back to our meeting organisation team. Not sure what is/isn't possible given that the meetings are always in hotels.
Finally, a but of positive feedback again:
I think the discussion on (male) allies is a really good and important one, I was really pleased to see it. I've met lots of male allies at RIPE, even those who aren't active advocates and don't call themselves feminist (yet?), but who encourage me in my work and mentor me. If some of these men become more feminist, that's really awesome, and thank you for working on that.
Thank you Theresa for your valuable feedback and for engaging in the diversity discussions!
Hope to see you at a RIPE meeting next year!
Best, Theresa
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Gergana Petrova wrote:
Hi all,
About the T-shirts, Amanda, I don't think Theresa was suggesting to have only "unisex" T-shirts - she suggeted having two types - "fitted" and "unisex". Maybe I am wrong about this, but I haven't heard any "opposite feedback" (coming from women, presumably?) suggesting we should only have one type of T-shirts for everybody...
Unisex is not a mix between the male and female cut. The unisex cut is basically identical to the cut traditionally associated with men (same chest, waist, and hip measurements).
Basically it's is giving everybody men's cut, but telling women to be happy about it, since it's labelled "unisex". I don't see why RIPE NCC should only offer "unisex", especially given the diversity efforts we are making. The biology of men and women is different. Women have breasts, smaller waist, bigger hips. That's why unisex (aka men's cut) does not fit women well. I support Theresa's suggestion to offer two cuts. As for the labeling, I also support labeling them "fitted" and "loose" (rather than "mens" and "womens") or any other way, so people can make up their mind themselves.
In conclusion, I do not believe women should be happy with a staight cut, that doesn't fit their biology, simply because it is labelled "unisex". I think we should offer two cuts and lablel them in a gender-neutral way.
It's not just about the cut, care needs to be taken in how the printing is laid out. What looks fine on a flat male chest, can look at best weird, and at worst offensive on a large female chest (think parts of designs cut ff by boob shape). T-Shirt design is hard. Calling a traditional mens cut "unisex" is just wrong. I like the "fitted" and "unfitted" labelling. J -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFbzcwH42M0lILkmGIRAg6fAJsFI9zbtrh0le+9758UyRUr+GJzfACeNa9Q U4uxClOrygso6DgW/d3ytGs= =j+Ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Getting the t-shirts right *is* really hard...speaking from experience after organising the shirts for 17 meetings. I had a supplier that would custom-cut the shirts, we had them custom labelled and people still complained (too thin, too long, too short). Unfortunately they went bankrupt. Ultimately, the way a t-shirt fits is going to be a very personal thing. Some women like them tight, some want them loose. Some want shorter sleeves, others longer. Some want a crew-cut neck, others want a v-neck. With 800 people, it's hard to make everyone happy. Rest assured that we try our best and listen to feedback - but there will inevitably always be people that wish the shirt fit their body differently. I heard from many women (and men) that they loved the shirts, for the record, I also have a waist and boobs and the RIPE 77 unisex shirt fit me well - as it did my male colleague: https://twitter.com/ripemeeting/status/1052106331921047552 Other times, I didn't like the fit of the shirt on my body but others loved them. We can't make everyone happy but we do try our best. My point being that every body is different, so saying a unisex shirt doesn't work for a woman isn't necessarily true. On 22/10/2018 15:09, Julia Freeman wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Gergana Petrova wrote:
Hi all,
About the T-shirts, Amanda, I don't think Theresa was suggesting to have only "unisex" T-shirts - she suggeted having two types - "fitted" and "unisex". Maybe I am wrong about this, but I haven't heard any "opposite feedback" (coming from women, presumably?) suggesting we should only have one type of T-shirts for everybody...
Unisex is not a mix between the male and female cut. The unisex cut is basically identical to the cut traditionally associated with men (same chest, waist, and hip measurements).
Basically it's is giving everybody men's cut, but telling women to be happy about it, since it's labelled "unisex". I don't see why RIPE NCC should only offer "unisex", especially given the diversity efforts we are making. The biology of men and women is different. Women have breasts, smaller waist, bigger hips. That's why unisex (aka men's cut) does not fit women well. I support Theresa's suggestion to offer two cuts. As for the labeling, I also support labeling them "fitted" and "loose" (rather than "mens" and "womens") or any other way, so people can make up their mind themselves.
In conclusion, I do not believe women should be happy with a staight cut, that doesn't fit their biology, simply because it is labelled "unisex". I think we should offer two cuts and lablel them in a gender-neutral way. It's not just about the cut, care needs to be taken in how the printing is laid out. What looks fine on a flat male chest, can look at best weird, and at worst offensive on a large female chest (think parts of designs cut ff by boob shape). T-Shirt design is hard.
Calling a traditional mens cut "unisex" is just wrong. I like the "fitted" and "unfitted" labelling.
J -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbzcwH42M0lILkmGIRAg6fAJsFI9zbtrh0le+9758UyRUr+GJzfACeNa9Q U4uxClOrygso6DgW/d3ytGs= =j+Ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi Amanda, While I agree with the point that a unisex t-shirt, aka a t-shirt with a standard (male) cut, may suit some individual women well, let's not fall in the trap of pointing out individual opinions and experiences. A fact of life is that if you go to any store catering for adults, men's and women's clothing have different cuts. While I agree that there will be different tastes regarding V-necks etc, we are not talking about fashion choices here, but about biological differences between the sexes (breasts, waist, hips) that require different cuts. Obviously anybody with a straight figure is very welcome to take a straight-cut T-shirt and anybody with a curvy figure is welcome to take a more curvy-cut T-shirt, regardless of their gender. I am not denying that there might still be people who fall through the cracks, for example someone (either gender) who is very very small, or very very large. I'm also not saying that offering two cuts would make everybody happy (some won't fit well in either). However, if we continute to consider women's cut a fashion choice or something unusual or extra, what sort of gender diversity are we planning to achieve? Can we please not only offer one choice, just because a few women don't mind wearing unisex (aka men's cut) T-shirts? Thanks! Gergana On 22/10/2018 16:09, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Getting the t-shirts right *is* really hard...speaking from experience after organising the shirts for 17 meetings.
I had a supplier that would custom-cut the shirts, we had them custom labelled and people still complained (too thin, too long, too short). Unfortunately they went bankrupt.
Ultimately, the way a t-shirt fits is going to be a very personal thing. Some women like them tight, some want them loose. Some want shorter sleeves, others longer. Some want a crew-cut neck, others want a v-neck.
With 800 people, it's hard to make everyone happy. Rest assured that we try our best and listen to feedback - but there will inevitably always be people that wish the shirt fit their body differently.
I heard from many women (and men) that they loved the shirts, for the record, I also have a waist and boobs and the RIPE 77 unisex shirt fit me well - as it did my male colleague: https://twitter.com/ripemeeting/status/1052106331921047552
Other times, I didn't like the fit of the shirt on my body but others loved them. We can't make everyone happy but we do try our best.
My point being that every body is different, so saying a unisex shirt doesn't work for a woman isn't necessarily true.
On 22/10/2018 15:09, Julia Freeman wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Gergana Petrova wrote:
Hi all,
About the T-shirts, Amanda, I don't think Theresa was suggesting to have only "unisex" T-shirts - she suggeted having two types - "fitted" and "unisex". Maybe I am wrong about this, but I haven't heard any "opposite feedback" (coming from women, presumably?) suggesting we should only have one type of T-shirts for everybody...
Unisex is not a mix between the male and female cut. The unisex cut is basically identical to the cut traditionally associated with men (same chest, waist, and hip measurements).
Basically it's is giving everybody men's cut, but telling women to be happy about it, since it's labelled "unisex". I don't see why RIPE NCC should only offer "unisex", especially given the diversity efforts we are making. The biology of men and women is different. Women have breasts, smaller waist, bigger hips. That's why unisex (aka men's cut) does not fit women well. I support Theresa's suggestion to offer two cuts. As for the labeling, I also support labeling them "fitted" and "loose" (rather than "mens" and "womens") or any other way, so people can make up their mind themselves.
In conclusion, I do not believe women should be happy with a staight cut, that doesn't fit their biology, simply because it is labelled "unisex". I think we should offer two cuts and lablel them in a gender-neutral way. It's not just about the cut, care needs to be taken in how the printing is laid out. What looks fine on a flat male chest, can look at best weird, and at worst offensive on a large female chest (think parts of designs cut ff by boob shape). T-Shirt design is hard.
Calling a traditional mens cut "unisex" is just wrong. I like the "fitted" and "unfitted" labelling.
J -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbzcwH42M0lILkmGIRAg6fAJsFI9zbtrh0le+9758UyRUr+GJzfACeNa9Q U4uxClOrygso6DgW/d3ytGs= =j+Ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
As long as I've been organising the shirts, we've always had two different cuts. This meeting was literally the first meeting (afaik) in 17 meetings where we've had one cut of shirts. We made this choice because we've had requests for several years now to do long-sleeve/baseball style shirts. We got samples in and I had men and women in the office try the shirts on - I got positive feedback on the style/cut, so we ordered them. We offer shirts - regardless of cut - in a size range of XS (and XXS where possible) to 4XL. Fashion preferences aside for how a shirt conforms to a body shape, there should be a shirt available to fit (most) bodies given the size range we made available. Thanks, Amanda On 22/10/2018 16:44, Gergana Petrova wrote:
Hi Amanda,
While I agree with the point that a unisex t-shirt, aka a t-shirt with a standard (male) cut, may suit some individual women well, let's not fall in the trap of pointing out individual opinions and experiences.
A fact of life is that if you go to any store catering for adults, men's and women's clothing have different cuts.
While I agree that there will be different tastes regarding V-necks etc, we are not talking about fashion choices here, but about biological differences between the sexes (breasts, waist, hips) that require different cuts.
Obviously anybody with a straight figure is very welcome to take a straight-cut T-shirt and anybody with a curvy figure is welcome to take a more curvy-cut T-shirt, regardless of their gender.
I am not denying that there might still be people who fall through the cracks, for example someone (either gender) who is very very small, or very very large. I'm also not saying that offering two cuts would make everybody happy (some won't fit well in either).
However, if we continute to consider women's cut a fashion choice or something unusual or extra, what sort of gender diversity are we planning to achieve?
Can we please not only offer one choice, just because a few women don't mind wearing unisex (aka men's cut) T-shirts?
Thanks! Gergana
On 22/10/2018 16:09, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Getting the t-shirts right *is* really hard...speaking from experience after organising the shirts for 17 meetings.
I had a supplier that would custom-cut the shirts, we had them custom labelled and people still complained (too thin, too long, too short). Unfortunately they went bankrupt.
Ultimately, the way a t-shirt fits is going to be a very personal thing. Some women like them tight, some want them loose. Some want shorter sleeves, others longer. Some want a crew-cut neck, others want a v-neck.
With 800 people, it's hard to make everyone happy. Rest assured that we try our best and listen to feedback - but there will inevitably always be people that wish the shirt fit their body differently.
I heard from many women (and men) that they loved the shirts, for the record, I also have a waist and boobs and the RIPE 77 unisex shirt fit me well - as it did my male colleague: https://twitter.com/ripemeeting/status/1052106331921047552
Other times, I didn't like the fit of the shirt on my body but others loved them. We can't make everyone happy but we do try our best.
My point being that every body is different, so saying a unisex shirt doesn't work for a woman isn't necessarily true.
On 22/10/2018 15:09, Julia Freeman wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
About the T-shirts, Amanda, I don't think Theresa was suggesting to have only "unisex" T-shirts - she suggeted having two types - "fitted" and "unisex". Maybe I am wrong about this, but I haven't heard any "opposite feedback" (coming from women, presumably?) suggesting we should only have one type of T-shirts for everybody...
Unisex is not a mix between the male and female cut. The unisex cut is basically identical to the cut traditionally associated with men (same chest, waist, and hip measurements).
Basically it's is giving everybody men's cut, but telling women to be happy about it, since it's labelled "unisex". I don't see why RIPE NCC should only offer "unisex", especially given the diversity efforts we are making. The biology of men and women is different. Women have breasts, smaller waist, bigger hips. That's why unisex (aka men's cut) does not fit women well. I support Theresa's suggestion to offer two cuts. As for the labeling, I also support labeling them "fitted" and "loose" (rather than "mens" and "womens") or any other way, so people can make up their mind themselves.
In conclusion, I do not believe women should be happy with a staight cut, that doesn't fit their biology, simply because it is labelled "unisex". I think we should offer two cuts and lablel them in a gender-neutral way. It's not just about the cut, care needs to be taken in how the
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Gergana Petrova wrote: printing is laid out. What looks fine on a flat male chest, can look at best weird, and at worst offensive on a large female chest (think parts of designs cut ff by boob shape). T-Shirt design is hard.
Calling a traditional mens cut "unisex" is just wrong. I like the "fitted" and "unfitted" labelling.
J -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbzcwH42M0lILkmGIRAg6fAJsFI9zbtrh0le+9758UyRUr+GJzfACeNa9Q U4uxClOrygso6DgW/d3ytGs= =j+Ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Basically it's is giving everybody men's cut, but telling women to be happy about it, since it's labelled "unisex". I don't see why RIPE NCC should only offer "unisex", especially given the diversity efforts we are making. The biology of men and women is different. Women have breasts, smaller waist, bigger hips. That's why unisex (aka men's cut) does not fit women well. I support Theresa's suggestion to offer two cuts. As for the labeling, I also support labeling them "fitted" and "loose" (rather than "mens" and "womens") or any other way, so people can make up their mind themselves.
In conclusion, I do not believe women should be happy with a staight cut, that doesn't fit their biology, simply because it is labelled "unisex". I think we should offer two cuts and lablel them in a gender-neutral way. I certainly support having T-shirts with a cut intended to suit women's
On 22/10/2018 13:55, Gergana Petrova wrote: body shapes, especially as women in our community have asked for them. Regarding "fitted" and "unfitted", as it happens men's shirts are sold using these descriptions. The "fitted" version doesn't suit my more rotund body shape, as it is designed to flatter men with an athletic figure. That being so, I very much doubt such a cut would suit women with moderate or larger busts. Now I understand that you are not proposing that the shirts labelled fitted should actually be "men's fitted", but given the 80% male gender balance, would female attendees (especially first time attendees) necessarily realise that "fitted" was meant to be code for "intended to accommodate female breasts"? What you are proposing is that there be T-shirt with a cut intended to suit a woman's body shape, but to hide that you are doing so by using non-obvious terminology. Why would you do that? What is wrong with openly displaying that we provide T-shirts for all our community? Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
participants (4)
-
Amanda Gowland -
Gergana Petrova -
Julia Freeman -
Malcolm Hutty