Hi, Simon,
> Wow! I certainly seem to have stirred up a hornets nest here.
I'd say you have! Don't worry about it, though. So long as it remains
positive, and people talk to each other instead of past each other, I think
it's healthy.
>
> I'm stunned that
> anyone can be quite as stupid as the people some of you are dealing with.
The thing is, those attitudes that you call stupid are really widespread,
and not only stupid people seem to hold them. There are some guys who are
really intelligent and capable when it comes to just about everything else,
but really just don't get gender or minority issues at all.
Let me give an example. About a year and a half ago, when I was with
Interpath, there was a programmer who I was pretty friendly with. He is
intelligent, talented, and certainly treated the women there with respect.
I was shocked when he argued that women should receive lower pay than men
for the same job. His attitude was that we were more likely to go off and
have babies, while men are much more focused on their careers and likely to
stay on the job, and therefore employers should invest more in men.
I used myself as an example: then an 18 year career, single, no children,
and very dedicated to my work. I asked why I should be paid less. His
answer was that I might still marry, go off, and have children, and that
most women do, so therefore all women should be paid less. There was no
arguing with him. He had his stereotypes firmly entrenched in the most
closed part of his mind.
>
> The prime justification I have seen for demographics shifting basically
boils down to
> "There should be more women in my field because if there were, there would
be less
> sexism".
There is some truth in that argument. If there were more highly qualified
women in the field, it would be seen as the norm and women would get more
respect. Wanting to shift the demographics, however, is not necessarily an
argument for quotas. Encouraging more women and making the workplace more
woman-friendly shifts the demographics in a natural way. Also, enforcing
the law when their is blatant discrimination also makes clear that it is no
longer societally acceptable.
Jenn made a great point when she wrote:
> What we want is equal treatment. We know we won't get it until attitudes
> change. We're working to change the attitudes, and in the meantime, to
> provide places where we can support each other.
Encouraging the demographic shift you seem to rail against will help achieve
that equality. I think it's one of the reasons things *are* better now than
20 years ago.
> I still think that demographic tampering is a silver bullet. People
expect too
> much from it and it's a nuisance.
Jenn countered:
> You're being inaccurate, and - frankly - it's coming across as patronising
> as well. Sorry.
I don't expect you mean to be, but I have to agree. My original response to
you was fairly hostile. The tone of a message does make quite a difference.
> Being different is *not* easy, but if we
> don't maintain our differences, the world will be a very boring place. If
you want easy,
> follow the stereotype. If you want to be a real person, do your own thing
and take the
> consequences.
Where have any of us disagreed with this? How have any of us argued for
stifling individuality? Since it is a recurring theme for you, it seems to
me you see our arguments this way. Please do show me, in my posts or in
others, because I just don't see it.
>
> On the subject of choice, you can't choice who your boss hires, but you
can choose your
> boss (ie. get another job).
Can we? If the attitude is common in the industry it means that our ability
to shift into a better place is sorely limited.
Also, if a boss has a Neanderthal (and in the U.S., often illegal) attitude
towards women and minorities, shouldn't we try and change things. Oh, I
understand that in some cases you will never change his attitude, but it
often is exactly the opposite of corporate policy. Sometimes, if a bunch of
us speak up, as I've already described, change for the better really does
happen.
>You can choose the industry you work in.
I chose computers. Now, tell me, when I have discovered quite early what I
like and what I am good at, why should I have to be condescended to just
because of my gender? Why should I be discouraged from pursuing a
scientific or technical career? For that matter, why should any young
woman?
Did it occur to you that some women, rather than fighting for respect,
recognition, and even acceptance every step of the way, might just be a
little discouraging? Why do I get the idea that dozens of women here, not
just the ones who have spoken up, are fighting sexism and have been for
years?
Yes, I can choose my industry, but why should my choices be limited, or even
made difficult, because of my gender?
> You can choose to be "thick skinned" (I need to).
Some can, some can't. Why should women or minorities have to more than
anyone else?
> If you choose to live by the sword ( be it a physical, intellectual
> or emotional one ) you shouldn't be surprised that people would like you
to die by it. It's
> still a choice you've made.
Are you actually arguing that sexism is a natural consequence of a woman
going into IT and that we have to accept it? Is that what I am reading
here?
>
> I'm pro linux chix. Forums for open and intelligent discussion are the
right thing to do.
Good. It's a start.
>
> I guess, in summary, I'm an individualist. I want people to have the
opportunity to do and
> be what comes naturally to them without arbitrary external prodding.
Exactly! That is precisely what I want. How is encouraging women to enter
a lucrative, exciting, and stimulating field "prodding"? How is tearing
down barriers to women (and minorities) prodding?
>
> I think it's great to provide support to female techs and to encourage
those who desire to
> move down that path. I think it's bad to round up people to become
clones.
Who is advocating that? How is the woman who set you off in the first place
by advocating the idea that more women should get into IT doing that?
> This *this* is
> my objection to demographics as a measure of who should be doing what.
> The chart is not the patient and the numbers are not people.
This, IMHO, is a specious argument. Showing a demographic problem in IT or
anywhere else does not mean forcing anyone to do anything. That is the crux
of our disagreement, from what I can see.
Regards,
Caity
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
