On Monday 23 September 2002 01:17, Nadav Har'El wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2002, Orna Agmon wrote about "Re: Weman and Linux": > > > The first step toward respecting *women* is to spell that word correctly :)
see my previous response about this - SORRY ! > > > This essay is not just about women in Linux. Many of the points > > are relevant to newbies in general, and to women in a mainly-male > > environment in general. > > I haven't read the entire thing yet, but I find several very curious things > in it. > > For example, one of the items is "Don't treat women stereotypically" and > another is "Do treat women like everyone else". Makes perfect sense. > Then come sections like "Don't micro-specialize or obsess about the same > topics" (because "... most women don't have the endless interest in > minutiae that men often display"). What is that, if not stereotypes about > women, claiming that women's brains are somehow "wired" differently?? > One might claim that this "endless interest in minutiae" is what gets > people certain types of technical jobs. Does this mean that women cannot > hold such jobs? > > > I think reading this and implementing at least some of the Dos > > and Don'ts may make the upcoming events (Welcome to Linux, Renanim insta > > party) more sucessful ones. Mainly about the importance of tolerance > > towards newbies and otherwise not confident people. After all, the > > success of the Newbies events are not really how-many-have-we-installed, > > but how-many-more-are-really-using-linux-now. > > Sorry, but I don't understand what the "being friendly to newbies" has to > do with women. It is a good advice on its own, but why mention this > together with the issue of women? Does this imply that most women cannot be > confident, cannot cope in unfriendly environment, or that most women come > to Linux events for finding friendly people, not for the technical > sessions? Again, I consider this a dangerous male-chauvinistic attitude > (especially if found in employers, who *are* looking for confident, > can-work-under-stress, technical people). > > Taking this question more down to earth, How many women do *you* know that > could be interested in Linux right now (e.g., because they already like > computers and care about freedom) but stay away from our meetings because > of the atmosphere in those meetings? May I dare guess that most women have > been unfortunately driven away from taking interest in Linux, or computers > in general, or engineering in more generality, in a much earlier age? > This is also true of most men, but I guess less than women. > > > Tal, thanks for the link. I have not yet had time to read all of it, > > including the essays it links to, but in many aspects it describes > > exactly the way I feel. > > Check out also http://www.linuxchix.org/, a mailing list (and site, groups, > and so on) of (mostly) women interested in Linux. > > http://www.linuxchix.org/content/docs/faqs/issues.html is especially an > interesting read. According to that FAQ, which expresses the opinion of at > least one woman, women geeks aren't basically different from male ones, > except certain issues that society is still forcing on women (sexual > harassment at work, taking care of the kids, etc.). I don't see there > anything about them being less technically inclined, more interested in > making friends than in learning, not being interested in details, or > other strange things I found written in that howto. > > By the way, people who have read the "chicks" thread in hackers-il: note > how a group of women call themselves "linuxchix.org" taking the term > "chicks" as slang, but not necessary derogetory. See also "geekchicks.com", > which is also relevant to the hackers-il "consulting" thread. ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
