Hi,
>
> > I am a geek who has answered the phone and been asked to pass the
> > caller on to 'someone who understands technical matters'.
>
> That sucks.
Yep, and Jenn is hardly unique. Some of our male peers in the field also
encourage this attitude, or practice it themselves.
>
> > I am a geek who turns up to geek parties and is automatically
> > dismissed as 'someone's wife'.
>
> So does that.
See my comments above.
>
> > I am a geek who constantly has to prove herself as a geek, rather
> > than as 'the partner'.
>
> That too.
...and again.
>
>
> > Now imagine that you constantly had to tell people you /do/ like
> > computers. And they don't believe you.
>
> That's also hard to imagine. Most people tell me to *stop* talking about
computers
> :)
Ah... but you are *not* female.
>
> > Now - please, PLEASE, help us figure out how to get people to
> > believe us.
>
> I can see that you're frustrated by people not taking you seriously. It's
damned
> annoying.
That is a very mild word, especially when one has, oh... 20 years experience
and is supposed to be a very Senior person.
>
> Here's a story to make you feel better:
>
You know, anecdotal stories don't help. Equality in the workplace is the
only cure, and that has happened. Also, you know what else helps? What
makes you so angry... mentoring and encouraging young women to enter the
field. LinuxChix is great for that, BTW.
>
> I don't deny that some female techs in some environments have difficulty
being taken
> seriously.
How about a whole lot of female techs in a whole lot of environments?
> In some cases this has to do with other peoples stupidity and in some
cases, peoples
> egos.
More likely it has to do with prejudices, stereotypes, societal attitudes,
and demographics. The latter is that guys are not used to seeing women in
technical positions.
>
> What I'm saying is that trying to remedy this by shoe-horning more females
into geek
> roles is a broken thing to do. For a start, it undermines peoples
individuality,
> yours included.
Oh, B.S.! Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything against their wills. All
we are trying to do is make IT more inviting and open to women. Getting
more women in IT is a laudable goal, and it is not about shoehorning people.
It certainly is not about stifling individuality. Quite the contrary. It
is about allowing everyone a full range of career choices, without fear of
prejudice, sexism, lower pay, and not being taken seriously. It is about
allowing a full range of individual expression. It is about saying that it
*is* OK to be a geek and a girl.
>
> What needs fixing is the attitude of those who are giving you the problem.
Yes... and having more competent technical women is one of the best ways to
do that, isn't it?
> Calling
> it a demographics problem robs you of the responsibility (and emotional
power) to
> deal with the real problem locally.
No, it does not. If there is a demographics problem due to unfair hiring
and promotion practices within a given department of a given company, that
needs to be addressed as such. No two situations are the same, and each has
to be dealt with individually. To dismiss the idea that the demographics
are indicative of a wider problem is simply ludicrous. To correct those
problems by encouraging more numeric balance can and does make sense in
some situations.
> A move to 50%/50% male/female split could take years, and even once it's
> reached, it will still take time for those with sexist attitudes to shift
their
> heads.
Yep. The current 99%/1% split reported for the Linux community makes
matters worse, doesn't it?
> If the men around you already have bad attitudes, equal demographics won't
> solve that in any reasonable amount of time.
Men like you saying not to try and correct the situation helps perpetuate
the situation.
> In your own world, you *choose* who you associate with ( if you don't,
time to start
> ).
Really? I can choose who else the multi billion dollar corporation I work
for hires? I didn't know I had such power. No, we do not choose.
> You can choose to educate the problems, you can choose to associate with
people
> who aren't problems or you can choose to just put up with it. Do
whichever one suits
> you best.
Thank you for limiting our options.
>
> A final note on education. Complaining about "rights", "equality" and the
like is
> worse than useless except when preaching to the converted.
Oh, B.S.! Diversity training does and will make a difference. Complaining
to management made a huge difference in the one case I described in my
previous post. I assure you I used the word "inequality" in my complaint.
Since there were multiple, identical complaints, the issues was dealt with
quite properly.
> Enforcement, on the other hand, changes behaviour and entrenches attitudes
( and the
> behaviour only changes when the enforcer is watching ).
Not so. I worked with the gentleman I complained about on a daily basis.
The enforcement action (and his demotion) took him quite by surprise. He
has made a genuine effort since then, and I really give him credit for that.
Besides, changing behavior is exactly the point. I really don't care what
some people think of me. I just want to be treated with respect, something
which did happen because of an enforcement action. It was a wake up call.
I really don't care what that man said about me when he went home.
>
> In the most carefully controlled environment, with nothing left to chance,
any given
> organism will do exactly as it damn well pleases
This is immutable? Unchangeable? I thought you were promoting the idea of
education. If this last line is so, why bother?
May I suggest that you are part of the problem?
-Caity
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
