You are right, it was too much. But let us try to see the parable that he was trying to illustrate, even if it was done badly. Would we be treating Ratazong equally if any of the ridicule and exclusion the original post spoke of were allowed to happen? We would not be. It would be wrong. It would be counter to what I believe the spirit of Perl to be.
If we treat classes of people like this, then we're not doing what many people are trying to do for the Perl community: make it more inclusive, make it more welcoming, listen; try to find consensus; change if change is needed, be compassionate if no change is possible.
Manifestos and conference codes of conduct are great; we should have them. But what we really need to do is live according to them. Or, if that's not possible, claim our rebellion by name, and say, "no, I believe you are asking too much," and engage to try to fix what we see as a problem.
I commented here because I felt that the unwritten, unspoken tenets of Perlmonks have begun to increasingly demand too much acquiescence to microagressions of many kinds (not only gendered but cultural as well), and I wanted to establish that I (and as we have seen, others) felt that these unwritten laws needed to be looked at.
He's not perfect, certainly, but think of it this way: Would you expect Larry to nod approvingly if the kind of stuff that's been said in this thread were said in front of him? Would you be proud to walk up to Larry at YAPC or OSCON and say "I called someone a beliigerent two faced cancerous asshole on Perlmonks today!"? (Search the thread, it's a quote.)
Do you think he'd say, "I am so glad you're associating that kind of thing with the language I've worked on for years. Good job."? Or do you think he'd be more likely to look at you and say, "I don't think that was right."?
In reply to Re^5: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?