[Womoz] Womoz Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10
Melissa Draper
melissa at meldraweb.com
Thu Jun 17 04:54:33 CEST 2010
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 14:46 -0400, Majken Connor wrote:
> " Men in Open Source know that women just don't have what it takes."
> men, not there are some that need to be wiped out, _Men._ You are
> making excuses for the other when you try and say "obviously she only
> meant the small portion who feel this way."
I've seen this said by misogyny apologists. She is mocking the stupidity
of it.
> "When I get to this point, people often say that the Open Source
> movement has a history of being hostile to all new people (true), so
> it's not a big deal and certainly doesn't mean they are anti-woman
> (false)." Right here. And here "Second, it *does* mean that their
> attitude has the effect of being anti-woman (really, it has the effect
> of being anti-everyone-who's-not-a-white-straight-c
> is-ablebodied-man)." If it weren't for the qualifier in the second
> quote I might have been able to agree, but the author has clearly
> identified being sexist and racist as the same thing as not liking
> anyone. It's not the same, it shouldn't be lumped in together.
She is right.
This is the Kyriarchy at play. It pedestals a demographic of single
race, gender, class, orientation, health status over *all* others.
The same group on that pedestal can affect more than one marginalised
group. It's not wrong at all to say that racism and sexism share a
particular barrier. When you're a woman of colour, you've got double the
trouble.
I linked you to info on Kyriarchy, intersectionality and othering last
time.
> " You know what they bond over, in large part? Women's bodies. Tits,
> how much they like them. Bitches and how crazy they are. You know,
> locker room stuff. Guy culture." There are 3 or 4 good ones in here.
> And again, by using the term "Guy culture" she _is_ asserting that it
> is the majority and accepted way for men to behave. And it's wrong.
> You know what guys in CS bond over? _The code_. Men who engage in
> locker room culture tend to actually use a locker room, or go out to
> bars.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents is a page full
of faily stuff. A typical excuse given is that they like this because
"that's how men are". There is the expectation of some that bonding with
a presentation audience is best done with pictures of pretty/nekkid
girls. "Because men like it" is the apologist excuse given. Boothbabes
get used at events because the organisers think it endears them to the
98% "target market". People hold parties around conferences and hire
sexy ladeeez to dance with delegates to help the delegates bond.
What she has described is what it seems like to many women who are
trying to get in to open source projects. They're *told* that's what
it's like and that's why nekkid ladeez are allegedly appropriate in
presentations; an excuse I've personally heard. From project
leaderships. From people who make hooker jokes in keynotes and say how
hard it is to explain stuff to us. From the mouths of dudes. It's a
perfect example of essentialism when we're told "He's just like that"
and "That's just how guys bond, it's guy culture". Sure as water is wet
not something this woman has coined up all by herself.
For the most part the open source guys do bond over code. She hasn't
actually denied that. However, Conferences and Summits I've been to have
always contained the bonding that she describes interspersed into coding
discussion. Wife/girlfriend "jokes" etc, in between coding discussion
stanzas. It need not be the sole topic, but that's enough to alienate
many women from discussions. They can't share in those jokes, that
bonding. That is what she's referring to. That's what she's seen. That's
what *I* have seen.
> "In fact, I can't think of a woman who's made a name for herself in
> Open Source as a developer. Can you?" This is stupid. How many men
> can you really name? Ask people the names of some notable Mozilla
> developers. _They don't know them._ Do you even know the last time
> Blake Ross actually contributed anything directly to Mozilla?
>
Richard Stallman has been quoted as saying there's no women in GNU
projects, so it's not so ludicrous a statement (he also talks about
getting them involved by encouraging groups that are 98% men to take the
"emacs virginity" of women. What bonding over women's bodies? Surely
this isn't an example.)
The point that this is making, as far as I can tell, is that in the
rarity of women within immediate association in one's involvement to
relate to (like men have... 98% of the people around them) or be
mentored by hurts women like the author who are trying to feel like they
fit in somewhere. Some well known role models would be nice. If they
were visible. Which they're not unless you go actively hunting for,
sifting out the 98% of contributors that aren't. It's a cyclical thing.
>
> As for feeling safe, she didn't actually talk about _her own_
> experiences. She was philosophizing about the general female
> experience. Besides that, you're now typecasting me and Tiffney when
> you imply that women can no longer feel safe here because we're
> "apologists." Are we not allowed our honest opinions? Who's not safe
> then?
Where in that does she say this isn't a reflection of her own
experiences? I'm guaranteeing you it's a reflection of mine.
And if you're going to go stompy-footed and rush to the the aid of poor
downtrodden men who might have to share privilege by calling feminists
who mock misogyny apologism and discuss causes of gender disproportion
in open source sexist (and make "never kissed a" type comments about
them), then yes, I do imply that people may not feel comfortable being
feminists with humour or discussing causes of gender disproportionism on
this list where you might call them sexist for... speaking out against
sexism.
You're allowed your opinions, likewise I'm allowed mine.
This is mine.
Because it disagrees with you and calls you to question doesn't mean you
didn't get to say your part first. You did.
> _NO ONE_ deserves to be accused of prejudice undeservedly. We are
> _not_ coddling men by making sure we are fair in our judgments, we're
> being _decent human beings_.
Except you're not being fair in your judgements.
You accused "cme" of being sexist because she mocked stuff said about
guys by misogynist apologists, because she outlined a male privilege,
and because she noted the between-the-lines bonding that happen in
sexualised presentations (not at pubs) and coding discussions (why would
it being at a pub matter, are women *ahem* excluded from that?).
Denying "cme" her (equal to mine) observations and calling her a sexist
for mocking other people's stupid excuses for sexism is *not* what I
consider to be "decent".
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Melissa Draper
> <melissa at meldraweb.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 23:19 -0400, Majken Connor wrote:
> > Did you read the article?
>
>
> Yes I did. It's quite accurate to my experiences.
>
> > I'm sorry, but just because a woman says something doesn't
> mean she
> > deserves my support. That's sexist.
>
>
> That's not what I said. Let me try again: "Way to be
> supportive to the
> women here who are reading who may have previously thought
> they might be
> able to trust this to be a place they can comment on bad
> behaviours and
> be understood. And not kicked in the face."
>
> Expecting women to be always upstanding, prim, proper, calm,
> courteous
> never ever for a single moment think of mocking the behaviour
> that makes
> her want to give up and quit lest they be considered "nuts"?
> *That* is
> sexist.
>
> I for one am always been open to people contacting me to
> discuss
> difficulties they're having as a result of possessing lady
> brains. If
> they don't feel they can trust this list (now).
>
> > Given the brush with which the author paints men I highly
> doubt she's
> > really interacted with many on any meaningful level.
>
>
> I'd say she has dealt with men plenty enough if she's had time
> to be
> annoyed at the behaviour of some of them enough to have had
> run-ins with
> their apologists (you know, the women and men who generalise
> in attempt
> to excuse) giving her quotes with which to write that blog
> post.
>
> (Also, oh $deity, please tell me you didn't just try the
> pathetic "never
> kissed a girl" narrative...)
>
> > She's *wrong* about how the majority of men behave and think
> about
> > women.
>
>
> She's compiled much of the *apologia* (aka excuses) that I see
> *regularly*, and spoken it as said by others, not herself. I'm
> pretty
> sure she's read my mind to get the wording the exact same way
> as I've
> seen and heard it. She's repeating the words of men *and* the
> words of
> women who defend the tokenising, objectifying, dismissive
> culture that
> reeks of misogyny (and all sorts of other marginalising).
> These quotes
> are not "blatant lies". These are actual things said.
> Obviously they're
> not spoken or believed by everyone, but as I said, I have
> personally
> seen or heard every single damned one of them verbatim in an
> open source
> context. They are real things in the world.
>
> I honestly believe that her blog rant very accurately it
> highlights that
> all the papercuts together are a lot more powerful together
> than they
> are alone. She's compiled a large portion of my actual lived
> experience
> as a feminist woman in Open Source.
>
> > Just like she was incorrect about Blacks and Irish. She
> doesn't even
> > get the definition of sexism right.
>
>
> I think you'll find she's not even trying to define sexism
> there, but
> rather drawing a line between sexism and other marginalised
> groups (like
> People of Colour) and touching on other elements of Kyriarchy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy such as
> "Intersectionality"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality & and
> "Othering"
> http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/rww03/othering.htm
>
> > This list is about exploring the reasons and solutions to
> the existing
> > gender gap. Assuming that the only problem is that men are
> sexist is
> > in and of itself sexist.
>
>
> She is exploring a very real and very valid reason. The
> Thousand
> Papercuts of being a Girl or Woman in Open Source.
>
> And no where in there does she say "all men". Not once. Nor
> does she say
> "majority of men" or "most men", nor "men say", nor "guys say"
> nor "men
> behave" nor "men say". Nor "men do", except in a string
> describing how
> "everyone" responds to what women do. She's documented what
> "everyone"
> and "people" are saying and doing.
>
> > Do we care about sexism as a real problem that harms
> humanity or are
> > women the only ones who deserve protection?
>
>
> This *is* a women's space. To ask it to be a space for
> discussing the
> nurturing of those poor men with only 90% percent
> representation in the
> community would be like asking us to protect IE because
> Firefox people
> said something about its security flaws.
>
> There's lots of things wrong within a Kyriarchy, but believe
> me,
> feminists mocking actual excuses given by *both* men and women
> for the
> continuation or alternatively non-existence of
> locker-room/seedy-bar
> behaviour and sexism *without* either stating "all men" or
> offering a
> disclaimer cookie, really is not one of them.
>
>
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Melissa Draper
> > <melissa at meldraweb.com> wrote:
> > What a way to be supportive of a woman being
> overwhelmed by
> > the barriers
> > affecting her and venting on her blog; viciously
> blaming her
> > for all the
> > bad things that happen to women in a big faily
> waterfall of
> > "but what
> > about the men!? they are so hard done by! and
> oppressed! when
> > women
> > don't explicitly excuse at least some of them!".
> >
> > The expectation for every criticism of patriarchy to
> be
> > accompanied by
> > an explicit "but this is only some men! probably not
> you!" is
> > problematic in itself. It's easy when seeing
> something
> > negative about
> > your demographic that contains a "not all!"
> disclaimer to
> > immediately
> > place yourself in the disclaimer, and refuse to
> change how you
> > personally behave. People who actually deserve those
> > disclaimer cookies
> > actually don't need them. See the law of cookies at
> > http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/04/29/no-cookie/.
> >
> > Expecting women to /unfailingly/ provide that escape
> from
> > responsibility
> > for men is not helpful in any way, shape, or form.
> It's really
> > just a
> > continuation of marginalised people being expected
> to excuse
> > bad
> > behaviour from privileged people in an actual
> conversation
> > lest they be
> > considered one of those Bad Marginalised People (you
> know, the
> > ones who
> > refuse to accept the blame for their own
> marginalisation).
> > We've all
> > been guilty of it at some point; Think of times you
> or your
> > friends
> > might have said "um, yeah, sure, you're not sexist"
> to someone
> > who got
> > all up in arms over a discussion about sexism? Even
> if known
> > to be
> > partial to off-colour, dehumanising or "housework is
> for the
> > women"
> > "jokes". Merely knowing what is sexist is not an
> immunisation
> > against
> > it.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the purpose of this
> list is to
> > help
> > support women who are battling barriers, not offer
> excuses to
> > men who
> > might be offended at the thought that they benefit
> from
> > privilege. Is
> > that really too much to ask of it?
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 10:07 -0700, Tiffney Mortensen
> wrote:
> > > Agreed. It would have been nice to see some
> constructive
> > suggestions for dealing with this issue, as well as
> finding
> > ways to connect professionally with men. Not all
> guys are
> > chest thumping frat boys. Perhaps Mozilla is unique
> but in
> > general people take gender equality for granted
> around here.
> > We don't have a full gender balance quite yet and
> occasionally
> > it can feel male-dominated, but that's more of a
> byproduct of
> > the fact that there are more male employees, rather
> than a
> > "good old boys' club."
> > >
> > > I like Katie's point about avoiding inflammatory
> > communication. Responding to the jerks out there
> with "OMG
> > SEXISM PATRIARCHS HATE YOUR FACES ALL OF YOU !!!
> 1!!!!111!!!!!"
> > just reinforces the stereotype that women are (a)
> nuts (b)
> > less professional than men and (c) too emotional to
> get work
> > done. Venting frustration can be useful, but only if
> it's done
> > in a way that integrates humor, constructive advice,
> or
> > self-scrutiny so that others feel invited to
> participate in
> > the conversation.
> > >
> > > T
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Majken Connor" <majken at gmail.com>
> > > To: womoz at lists.womoz.org
> > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 8:10:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Womoz] Womoz Digest, Vol 11, Issue
> 10
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I didn't find this article offensive to
> women. I
> > can clearly see that the author doesn't agree with
> all the
> > stereotypes about women being incapable. However the
> author is
> > more than happy to stereotype back and includes some
> blatant
> > lies.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Kate Guernsey <
> > katie at mozillafoundation.org > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Majken-
> > >
> > > It starts at "Now, you certainly don't have to be
> obsessive
> > and single-focused to actually be a good coder, but
> you do to
> > be perceived as one. So if you're a woman, you're
> > automatically not serious enough! Awesome, no?"
> > >
> > > goes until... "So I'm moving to DW for my feminist
> > principles! \o/ "
> > >
> > > And I'm not saying s/he is speaking to other
> females. I'm
> > saying s/he is speaking to the "majority of her
> colleagues"
> > which we know to be mostly male. My anecdote about
> how I
> > relate to men at times illustrates this pretty
> clearly. Read
> > it again (and my message) and I think you'll see
> it...
> > especially when she (I'm betting it's a woman)
> relates to
> > being linked to "Dorothea of Caveat Lector."
> > >
> > > We can all agree it's poorly written... but we
> should
> > recognize that she is using a communication style
> that is
> > pervasive in her network. Perhaps that can be a
> point of
> > departure at Whistler... attempt to change
> inflammatory
> > communication!
> > >
> > > Katie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Melissa Draper
> >
> > w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Womoz mailing list
> > Womoz at lists.womoz.org
> > http://lists.womoz.org/mailman/listinfo/womoz
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Womoz mailing list
> > Womoz at lists.womoz.org
> > http://lists.womoz.org/mailman/listinfo/womoz
>
>
>
> --
>
> Melissa Draper
>
> w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Womoz mailing list
> Womoz at lists.womoz.org
> http://lists.womoz.org/mailman/listinfo/womoz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Womoz mailing list
> Womoz at lists.womoz.org
> http://lists.womoz.org/mailman/listinfo/womoz
--
Melissa Draper
w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net
More information about the Womoz
mailing list