******************* note ************************
This is long. This is really long. most of this is response
to brenden, don't publically so that no one can claim that I flamed him to
a crisp in private. There are a few bits that I want to post for public
thought, but I'm going to edit them out and re send, so that no one has to
read 23k of vinniebabble to get to them :)
****************************************************
> Wow, somebody who actually wants to know?
> Amazing. Clearly-thought-out, to the point...Interesting...
Well, considering your behavior thus far, I think I'd given up. You may
well believe that they do, but your behavior has said otherwise, and we
are not your nannies, to follow you around and say 'You didn't really mean
to say that there are no *actual* issues with sexism in the computer
industry, did you?'. You are a responsible human being on this list, say
what you mean, stand by it or correct it as necessary. Don't say BS and
then try to pass it off as 'I was joking' or 'I was just trying to get
you riled up' and expect anyone to let it go.
> I think most of us can agree to these 3 things. I've
> experienced all of them first-hand. I think most of us have. It
> stinks. It really does. You expect a rational person to act in a
> rational manner, regardless of the situation. But these three things go
> over the line. So, we get pissed.
So far so good.
> I've gotten pissed. I've been in love with women for as long as I
> can remember existing, and thinking of someone not giving one of them a
> chance to grow into what they want/are capable of makes me want to puke. I
> don't know if I could live without women, so unlike myself they are, and I
> treasure the hell out of that. But, we're different. We are.
Okay, now here are some debatable points: How biologically different are
men and women? How many of the differences are actually social? How could
we prove any given point of view (nature vs nurture is a sticky thing)?
How do we handle the fact that even though women (as a whole) are
different than men (as a whole) any given individual may be very different
from their birth gender...i.e. women as a whole *may* prefer 'feminine'
activities to 'masculine' activities, but *Vinnie* prefers computers and
trucks to sewing, cooking, knitting, crafts, etc.
Does it really matter that we are different? Why?
> We want different things. We feel different about just about
> everything subjective. If we weren't different, we wouldn't be treated
> differently, not only in the family, but in society as a whole because
> there would be no basis for the separation.
Of course, before the fact that you are of different genders, you are two
different individuals. My sister and I also feel differently about
everything subjective. We are treated differently by our family and by
society. We do share a gender, however, so your anecdote isn't exactly
conclusive.
> Weak men aren't treated as
> "women" in a group of men, so it's not just the "physical strength" issue
> that crops up in so many circles. There must be something that bonds these
> groups of men together, beyond physical stamina, beyond having the same
> physical bodies. There must be something. Shared experiences? Shared
> feelings? I think maybe that's it.
Maybe. I'm in an interesting position here. Since I was a freshman in high
school I have been 'one of the guys' in a number of groups. I've been
on-line in some way since I was thirteen. I've had a number of groups of
on-line friends who never knew my gender, and who, because of my names
(vinnie/drachen/the black drachen) and because of the predominance of
males out there (which has become less so over the past two or three
years) *assumed* I was male (and I'll grant that, without lying, I had a
tendency to encourage this belief .. i.e. once I was accused of being a
'gay guy', and my response was something along the lines of 'Well, you're
half right, but my girlfriend would attest to you only being half right'
-- the insinuation being exactly opposite of the truth ;) ). I think it's
fairly safe to say that I've been 'one of the guys' on line and I've had
the chance to get a 'guys view' of male bonding (as you put it, normally I
find the word as ludicrous as PC, but in the interest of putting the idea
in words, I propose that for this discussion, the terms 'male bonding' and
'female bonding' refer to the generic differences in how women and men in
our society relate with those of their own gender, irrespective of whether
those differences are caused by nature or nurture) on line.
The real world is a little weirder, because (in my opinion, and you're
welcome to jaunt over to my webpage and get a look at the pic there if you
want to form your own) I can't pass as male. Boobs the size of mine don't
bind well, a friend of mine has described my face as 'demonically
cherubic' and I'm five feet tall. I don't understand why I get handed the
keys to the men's bathroom and greyhound is more likely to put 'mr
chassot' than 'ms chassot' on my tickets. It just happens, and that freaks
me out from time to time :P
But about my friends -- I'm usually 'one of the guys' which may or may not
be conclusive. Certainly, guys act differently around women who are 'one
of the guys' vs women who are 'possible mates' (for lack of a better term,
because it's not 'possible mates' in teh sense of they think they are
going to get laid :P but in the sense of there being a difference between
a 'normal' female, and a female you would never sleep with [i.e. your
mother/sister/etc]) but is it possible for them to ignore the fact I'm
female? I really don't know. Every so often something weird comes up (like
my friend matt referring to me as 'he' -- repeatedly and off hand) that
makes me wonder, but I *can't* know for sure.
That said, based on what I have seen I'm fairly sure that I've got a grasp
on what males are like when females aren't around -- between observations
of behavior online and offline of people I know from both, and the
observations I've made when people think I"m male, and the observations
I've made as 'one of the guys' I think I have a fairly good set of data on
what constitutes male bonding and what sets it off from female bonding.
And what I've seen probably won't surprise you :P Men tend to be more into
things, women tend to be more into people, men tend to be more
competative, women coopertive, men tend to problem-solve, women tend to
sympathize
It's been written about something around a million times. But taht doens't
answer how much of those differences are biological and how much are
societal. It certainly doesn't lead to 'well men should go into computing
and women should go into teaching' or even 'women aren't good problem
solvers' -- groups are very different from individuals...ask any mob :)
> I may hang out, nearly exclusively, with women. But I DO have
> quite a few male friends.
Cool. I'm about the opposite. The large majority of my friends are male.
> And when I am with these guys, I have this
> immediate, low-level "grunt" link with these guys.
You described it this way, not me :)
I don't know, I do get low-level connections (I'm not sure I have 'grunt'
connections with anyone...I normally don't grunt much after my first cup
of coffee) with people, but it's more functional -- i.e. I have a
non-intellectual connection with some friends of mine who are learning
disabled because we *know* what it's like to be considered a complete
idiot when you're actually quite intelligent, you just can't do stuff that
*most* people find 'easy' ; but that's not the same thing.
For the record I don't connect with women because they are women. There
are a lot of women I don't connect with at all, and ditto goes for men,
though I tend to connect with men more easily than women.
So the idea that you might connect with your only group of male friends at
a level that is different from the level at which you connect with your
female friends doesn't surprise me. I just don't make the jump to 'all
males connect at a level that is different from females'
> immediate. Not everything is shared, or whatever, but there's an immediate
> "I know what you mean". We don't even really have to speak.
Dude, I get this with sysadmin (no joke...because all sysadmin have to put
up with the same shit! really...sometimes it seems as if all users and all
bosses are the same entity..not really, obviously, but sometimes the
similarities are creepy! :) )
> Men of the
> list, think of how many "pick-up" games of basketball you've played in your
> life.
I'm female, and I've played many.
And I'm sure it's possible to be male and not have played any.
> It's an accepted mode, an accepted thing in your life because you're
> used to the "group pack" mentality. These are your hunting pack
> roots. Yes, men can learn to not be like this, but I believe we all feel
> the need to express our maleness. Not macho, just male. I am sure that
> women feel the same about other women. I doubt it's exclusive to one sex.
See, I don't think so. Now I'll grant, I'm a freak :) but I don't ever
feel a need to express my 'femaleness' -- to me being female is a physical
fact but not a defining one. I don't think of myself as female -- I think
of myself as a computer geek and a budding writer and fledgling activist.
I also (and I've put a lot of thought into this one) think of myself as
lesbian, not because I naturally would, but because the world in which I
live throws this fact in my face on a fairly regular basis.
This doesn't mean that I think everyone should be 'neuter' -- I think
everyone should be free to express themselves however they would like to
express themselves provided they don't trample on other people.
Personally, I like to get in touch with my 'wildness' by going out into
the desert or the woods (depending on where I'm living and how long I want
to drive) with a few friends (usually male, as it's hard to find females
who think running around in the middle of nowhere alone in the middle of
the night is a good idea) and a few intoxicants, getting blasted, howling
at the moon and chain smoking cigarettes (augh!). However, I don't suffer
under the delusion that everyone else, or even a significant minority of
people, feel this is necessary. I just think that I should be allowed to
do it, because it doesn't hurt anyone else, and no one else should be
forced to do it.
> But we try to deny our sex.
Me. Personally? All the time, because folks keep making generalization
about women and then fitting them to me, which doesn't work well.
About the only thing I feel I have in common with *all* women and *only*
women is two X chromosomes.
(I'd say ovaries, but not all women have ovaries)
> We try to take everything to this
> ultimate "neuter" level, which cannot exist.
Can humans be 'neuter'? I know a few who are -- I'm not suggesting all
humans should be, just that it's not an impossibility.
Certainly I think law should be 'neuter' -- why should you have a
different law because you have a Y chromosome? Should I have a different
law because I am five feet tall, or have blue eyes, or brown hair?
(actually, there is a sticky exception here -- reproductive law...
logically it *cannot* be the same because men *cannot* carry babies. it
just doens't work that way)
> about. "Gender Norming". Dropping standards for something to pass lesser
> individuals not capable of doing the job.
I have seen this -- but it was around long before feminism, and will
continue to be around once we are all dead, I'm sure -- not on gender, but
face it, does the bosses son have to toe the same line you do? Does the
principal's daughter get away with murder? Not all the time, but it
definetly happens. The world isn't fair. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight
stupidity (i.e. if your later comment on the firefighters is true -- and
they are putting people who can't lift hoses on trucks, rather than desk
jobbing them, then that would probably be worth fighting), but blaming it
on folks who are trying to work out why computing is less attractive to
women than, say, working in a chicken parts factory (one of the things
that fascinates me is that folks say 'women aren't in computing because
they prefer working with people' yet ignore the fact that there are whole
factories where you aren't allowed to talk to your coworkers and your
whole job consists of dealing with *things* [whether chicken carcasses or
garments or whatever] that are staffed [on the floor, not management]
largely by women, yet no one ever brings that up :) ) is rather silly -- I
don't think anyone here ever said that a female should be hired if she
doesn't know what's necessary (most of us would probably find it
insulting...I'm sure a few of us have been in the position of having to
work with another female who is there simply because she's female [I
have]. It's frickin' frustrating. I'm definetly not suggesting that).
> It's done for the football team
> at your high school or college to let in the dumb jocks.
That's not gender norming, that's IQ norming. It certainly doesn't help
females, as the vast majority of American High School football players are
male.
> do it." And this should be the rule everywhere. If you can carry a 70 lb
> backpack and walk 10 miles a day and you're gay, or you're a woman, or
> you're some other minority in the place you are? Load up! If you're a
> weak man or woman who can't lift the pack, get the hell off the truck. If
> you can do the job, do it. Who cares who you are. Isn't that what America
> is all about?
So far so good. You won't get any argument here (which brings up the
question, why are you ranting about it, I don't think anyone is going to
disagree with you, and you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said
before)
> Choice? Forcing people to be something they do not
> want/can't be is absolutely outrageous and ultimately, we'll find out how
> many people we forced into positions of power who couldn't do the job.
How does that connect with what we were discussing? Or are you trying to
start a new topic? And if so, what are you expecting to find..I can't
imagine anyone here suggesting we start kidnapping passing women and
forcing them to learn linux :)
> Can't do the job? No problem, because if we tell you that
> we need someone who can actually do the job, we'll be in court in 5 minutes.
I will grant that this has become a problem in the last few years in the
U.S. -- but I don't think it's about 'gender norming' at all -- in fact,
the majority of your examples had *absolutely nothing at all* to do with
gender. This also, as far as I can see has abosolutely nothing at all to
do with the current discussion. Can you explain how it does?
> But still we force the neuter. We force the opportunity to drop
> the standards and show how wonderfully noble we can be. THAT is what is
> offensive. The fact that we give in is what makes me want to spit.
But where were we doing this? What does this have to do with women in
computing/linux or screenshots on themes.org?
> lives and motives are too snowy-white to question. I'm not getting
> involved in that discussion except to giggle as I read the emails. It's
> just another pissing contest.
You know, I hate to make snide remarks normally, but I only see one
pissing contest around here, and you started it.
> So, to sum up what the hell I'm saying is: we have to try to
> understand each other first, rather than trying to change it immediately
> without first understanding the reasoning behind the other's position
> first.
Okay, specifically, about your posts. The responsibility for finding out
why someone is actually, right this moment, attacking, does not rest with
me. It is *not* my responsibility to figure out why every so often some
freak comes in here and starts throwing around wild accusations, usually
at the beginning of some really interesting discussion (last time it was
women in science software) and maiming it and drawing off energy to
themselves. It is sure as heck not my responsibility to find out why you
want to rile up people (your words) and try to fix you. I am not your
mommy. Nobody here is your mommy. I would also point out that you have not
shown the slightest interest as to why some of us might feel that a joke
implying that we all want something we don't might not be funny or why we
are getting really annoyed at you, instead pawning it all off as some
nebulous 'PC' -- your reasons for feeling as you do are definetly not more
important than our reasons for feeling as we do. Get this into your head.
That said, Here's the rest of my problem: Ingrid posted a very specific
complaint about a symptom (arguably) of another very specific problem
that is on topic for this list -- Specifically, it's considered okay to
post screenshots that contain sexual photographs of females in non-adult
screenshots, when some of us feel it's inappropriate and (arguably) a
symptom of the much larger problem that women don't necessarily always
feel welcome in the linux community or in the computer industry at large.
Theoretically we should have then had a discussion on whether or not the
screenshots were a problem, why they are, if they are, defined what was
bothering us, etc. *THEN* if we decided that it really was a problem, we
might start discussing why people post screenshots with porn et al in them
and what to do about it.
Instead, we got two guys who suddenly decided they had to start
criticizing every other post and make sophomoric jokes. I don't know if
you've noticed, but you are the person who has made the most posts here
in the last few days. This list is not Brenden/Coolian, it's issues :P
The reason I bring that last point up is because I see your actions as an
attempt to keep us from discussing the real issues. This may not have been
conscious, it may not even have been what you were tryign to do, but this
is a trend I see in some issues: when an issue is brought up on a list,
someone else will start attacking randomly on vaugely related issues,
effectively muffling the real discussion (as has happened here, whatever
your intent) -- on an adoption list I'm on, every discussion of
birthfather's rights gets drowned abortion debate, every discussion of
codifying rights and responsibilities in open adoption gets drowned in a
few nuts claiming that open adoption 'forces adoptive parents to give up
their right to parent and forces kids to deal with druggie birth parents'
(yes, as a matter of fact, I do find this insultgin, but that's not my
poitn :) ); I've already spoken a bit about the pornography debate --
specifically that any criticism of porn is often met with charges of
censorship; I've also seen it killed because of cruelty of pro-porn forces
against folks who were forced to perform in pornographic situations (it's
one thing to say 'that's not always the case' it's another to say 'that's
not always the case, slut' -- I recognize that it's an emotional argument
either way, but incivility shuts down communication) -- And frankly, I'm
sick of it.
I'm not sure what to do about it, though. On one hand, throwing people off
the list *is* censorship, and censorship is bad. At the same time,
managing to muffle and muddle real discussion is also censorship, of a
type.
In some ways I'm to blame as well, since I wouldn't ignore you. But if I
ignore you, I'm giving you right of way, which is not somethign I wish to
do. For now, I'm going to ask that you, personally, look at your motives
and hush until you have something to say that adds to the discussion,
rather than changing the discussion into 'does brenden know he's being an
ass? Is he trying to troll? Is he just confused? What should we do with
him?' -- your behavior is not consistant with your stated beliefs. If you
believe sexism is real, then why did you say we (by authors I assume you
mean me/deirdre/jenn v/cat/ingrid/nicole/I'm sure I left someone out,
sorry, lart me at will) have nothing real to complain about? If you hate
people who call names, why did you call us PC without cause, and then make
fun of tecknodragon's name? Why did you make a joke which would clearly
have been offensive if serious and not mark it as a joke? You have stated
you were *trying* to get people riled up. Why? Are we your personal
amusement? If this is the case, then please try to remember that we are
each individual humans with the same basic human worth as you have. We are
not televisions, books or sexual aids. If you want amusing toys, buy them
like the rest of us. Other people are not toys.
> There are things that need to be questioned and the world won't
> break just because you make a stand on your beliefs, that's how this world
> was made.
Yes. Exactly. But it would be nice if we could question things without
people coming in and saying 'but if you question this, you're being
politically correct and gender norming' etc etc
> I feel sexism exists, but I think we have to choose our battles,
> and sometimes we just have to wonder if being a bastard and fighting before
> we can figure out another way is just more than a little ignorant.
Who here was being a bastard and fighting before we were attacked? Some
how I missed the sending of the troops to synflood themes.org or
whatever...
> But, is that their job? Do they make that claim or are we
> lumping them into the "bad guys" column already?
No one put them in the 'bad guys' -- all anyone had gotten as far as
saying was that there is this attitude, and it is typified by these
screenshots on themes.org. Get your facts straight.
> post and are still angry, sorry, but I tried explaining. Have a good day.
It's not even about being angry, it's about the fact that we can't have a
decent discussion without someone taking it way out of context and way off
topic and into another galexy, just to prove that we are too PC and
shouldn't talk about porn in screenshots, because it's just not important.
Vinnie
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
