[Womoz] Womoz Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10

[Majken Connor]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Majken Connor <majken at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>> Hey, I'm all for being mean to the assholes. I think when someone really
has made a conscious choice, they deserve to reap the consequences. However
we know enough about biology and psychology now to know that gender is not a
hard binary line. We've already established that both men and women can
marginalize women based on gender. So yes, I believe that any tactic that
says screw them all, they don't deserve anything from us is really morally
wrong. It's not to win the argument.

-Majken



> -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/f1b385eb/attachment.htm>