[Womoz] Womoz Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10

[Majken Connor]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Leigh Honeywell <leigh at hypatia.ca> wrote:

> On 10-06-17 01:28 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm glad to hear that this is the case in some places when it comes to
> hiring.  That doesn't make it the case everywhere though, sadly.
>
>
>     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 tend to go with a rule of thumb that if it would get you fired or
> reprimanded from a workplace, it's probably not appropriate in a free
> software community.
>
> Which covers both of the things you mention, I think - asking someone out
> who's a coworker isn't generally something that gets one in trouble, unless
> there's a supervisory relationship involved, and even then it can in some
> cases be ok, whereas being a patronizing asshat can in some cases get one
> moved / fired.
>
>
>     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.
>>
>
>
> Just because an action is sexist doesn't mean the person is sexist.
> Everyone can learn to wear pants - I don't think it's optimistic at all :)
>
>
>  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'm going to quote Matthew Garrett on this one, from a discussion last year
> on LWN (available here http://lwn.net/Articles/348543/ ):
>
> "I used to do voluntary work for people with Asperger's. It doesn't
> automatically make you an asshole. Nor is it an excuse for being one.
> Implying that this kind of behaviour is a direct result of an autistic
> spectrum disorder is a grotesque insult to all the people with Asperger's
> who aren't assholes. This kind of behaviour should not be acceptable in the
> community, and shrugging it off as "Oh, it's not their fault" does nothing
> whatsoever to solve the problem."
>
> We covered this in more depth at GeekFeminism a while back as well:
>
>
> http://geekfeminism.org/2009/08/26/quick-hit-lwn-discussion-on-sexism-social-skills-and-autism-spectrum-disorders/
>
>
> -Leigh
> _______________________________________________
> Womoz mailing list
> Womoz at lists.womoz.org
> http://lists.womoz.org/mailman/listinfo/womoz
>

I'm actually in the process of divorcing someone who's been diagnosed with
Asperger's. For some it does actually make them assholes. It changes the
game of how they socialize, how they communicate (many choose not to,
preferring careers with low human to human interaction). How they evaluate
the effects of their actions on others can be very different. Of course it
ranges, because it's a spectrum disorder. It also ranges depending on the
environment and any behavioral therapy the person was able to receive.
However, as I said lack of empathy is a key marker.  One test done to help
diagnose children tests their ability to understand that other people don't
have the same information as they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test

No, it shouldn't be shrugged off, but to communicate effectively we have to
do what works for them, they can't be expected to socialize on a
neuro-typical level. Yes, that sucks, and is a large part of why I'm
divorcing. The changes and tradeoffs I'd have to make for the relationship
to work are not how I want to spend the rest of my life.

-Majken
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.womoz.org/pipermail/womoz/attachments/20100617/cf80c7b8/attachment-0001.htm>