[Womoz] Womoz Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10

[Majken Connor]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Leigh Honeywell <leigh at hypatia.ca> wrote:

> On 10-06-16 11:17 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>
>> Leigh,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. I think unless we ask the author herself all
>> any of us are doing is interpreting with a bias towards our past
>> experiences.  I'm afraid I can't be so lenient in giving the author the
>> benefit of the doubt. I think this turns into the "apologizing" that
>> Tiffney and I have been accused of. I agree with pretty much everything
>> you're saying, however it's a bit of a different context given that we
>> didn't just come upon it, it was presented to the list as something
>> "interesting."
>>
>
> Without the context of this being someone's processing of issues she's
> dealt with personally, I can definitely see where you're coming from about
> it being problematic, particularly if your sarcasm detectors didn't fire :)
>  Mine didn't initially and I was a little o_0 before I got to "Men in Open
> Source know that women just don't have what it takes." and thought "oh I see
> what she's doing here.  Snark filter on!".
>
>
>  This is the angle that I, and I believe Tiffney, are
>> basing our criticism from.  I'd love to hear about experiences like
>> these
>>
>
> We have a convenient list:
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents
>
>
>  and talk about them in a more scientific manner - trying to
>> pinpoint what breeds this type of experience, establishing whether it's
>> really the majority opinion (which I'm certain it's not) and how to
>> change attitudes.
>>
>
> I think biologically essentialist attitudes (see
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Essentialism for reference) about
> women's abilities with technology breeds a lot of these kinds of situations.
>  There are sadly still lots of folks out there who think it's "common sense"
> that girls / women suck at (math|CS|programming|hard sciences) due to some
> physical characteristic about our ladybrains, no matter how much research
> comes out saying that these differences are 1) massively overstated and 2)
> even where they do exist, attributable to social factors - such as whether
> or not we play video games! (see
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024145626.htm for a
> fascinating study out of U of Toronto).
>
> I don't think anyone's arguing that the various sterotypes and hostilities
> that women come up against in FOSS are majority opinions. But that doesn't
> mean they aren't barriers.
>

True, but I am familiar with several people in a position to hire in OS and
they _are_ up on the research, they know plenty of brainy women to know that
it's not a matter of IQ. So this is getting back to what I said about being
more scientific and specific. Where are these pitfalls, how can we get
around them, who can help us get rid of them.


>
> The ways of changing attitudes that I've found work so far: be present, be
> awesome, and call people on problematic actions.  The last one is probably
> the hardest - so often people freak out more at being called sexist than at
> the fact that someone experienced their actions as sexist, which is always
> sad to see in action.
>

I agree. I think if women are the ones who want to change something, we have
to by definition be the ones to change first.  The problem I have here is
that women do not agree on "problematic actions." I would not be offended as
a rule if a coworker asked me out. I would be offended however if that
coworker had a clear disdain for my work and talked down to me all the time,
but then those last two are the problematic behaviour, IMO.


>
> I can't remember where it came from, but there's a parable about pants
> that's relevant here.  Being called out on sexism/racism/ablism/transphobia
> etc. should be treated like being told that you're not wearing pants (or a
> skirt, if that's your thing). Instead of responding "HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT
> MY PANTSLESSNESS", a productive response is "wow, my butt was totally
> hanging out there! Thank you for pointing out my pantslessness!  I shall now
> remedy the situation with pants or possibly my favourite kilt.  Rock on."
>
> Everyone wins when we spread the gospel of pants :)


That's a nice analogy, but I think a little too ideal. I've seen many things
attributed to sexism that just weren't. We're talking cause and effect here.
Just because the effect is that a woman felt marginalized doesn't mean the
action was based on discrimination. Certainly we can tell men how their
actions inadvertently affected us without having to force them to accept the
mantle of "sexist." Besides that, someone who really is sexist isn't going
to care how it made you feel.

At the same time, there's a lot coming out that the "rockstars" of
engineering/CS are usually on the autism spectrum. Now disregarding the
discussion about whether or not people with autism do have unique talents
that do make them more gifted with code (which I think is worth exploring)
we have to remember that a key marker of this disorder is lack of empathy.
They really can be completely unaware of the effects of their choices.
They'll also be completely unwilling to accept the label of "sexist" when
they know gender didn't enter into their minds at all (and again for the
ones that it did, it's a whole different ballgame changing this one's
perceptions).


>
>  I just can't abide fighting sexism with sexism. As is
>> plain, even us women don't agree on the context and bounds of the
>> problem, so it stands to reason that men are even more helpless when it
>> comes to defining and changing the problem.
>>
>
> And I think it's massively important to allow people to process hurt and
> discrimination they have sufffered without worrying about whose fee-fees
> they are hurting in that processing.  I think that's what Melissa was trying
> to get at with her posts.  Let's try to engage with some of the hurt that
> cme's experienced, rather than going on forever about how exactly she chose
> to talk about it?
>
> I hesitated to include this link as it can tend to inflame things, but it's
> also very funny.  This whole argument reminds me of a couple of points on
> Derailing For Dummies, but it sure does fit with this one:
>
> http://derailingfordummies.com/#asbad
>
> Again, it's mega snarky, but I'm including it to point out that this is a
> part of this conversation, and conversations about race, class, sexuality,
> disability, and other axes of difference, that comes up over and over and
> over again.  There's no "nice enough" way to talk about this stuff.  We're
> always being "too hostile" or "too mean" when we call out discrimination.
>  It's one of the most effective ways for kyrarchies to maintain their power,
> as they get to define what "too mean" or "too hostile" is.
>
>
> -Leigh
> _______________________________________________
> Womoz mailing list
> Womoz at lists.womoz.org
> http://lists.womoz.org/mailman/listinfo/womoz
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.womoz.org/pipermail/womoz/attachments/20100617/ec91e67c/attachment-0001.htm>