Re: [issues] Screenshots (long)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote: > Vinnie Surmonde wrote: > > First, I consider that response different from 'Well if you walk down a > > street in a short skirt after dark aren't you asking for it?' only in > > degree. > > Your militant stand seems to stand on your way of clear sight. ::spills coffee WAY too close to a server:: EXCUSE ME? I agree with Vinnie 100% and I'm NOT an RFL. > What is dyke? IIRC it is a word for a lesbian? It's hard > to discuss colloqial connotations of words in slang of a > foreign language. Yes, exactly. > > It's not rare. This morning some jerk decided it was a good idea to hit > > on me and try to feel up my leg on the bus from capital hill to downtown > > seattle. It's not an every day thing, but I'd say I probably deal with a > > *very* obvious and physical symptom of it at least once every two weeks or > > so. I wouldn't consider that rare. And yes, the issues are related. > > I was talking about the same thing only in opposite > direction. Female to male. Got it? It IS rare, at least > according to my experience and that was what I was > talking about. Read it all before you complain. I *have* seen female-to-male sexism. That's the proximate cause of my late husband's death. It's important to note that, at least in the US, women and men sexually harass in approximately equal proportion. The reason this isn't generally recognized is that there are relatively few women in positions of power and thus the number of cases is lower. Michael Crichton did a favor (most notably to me, though I couldn't read it for some time after Richard died) by writing Disclosure and by talking about the problem. (I deleted the rest of the email mostly unread) -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Amanda Knox wrote: > Agreed. In fact, many men _do_ understand sexism in a way that women do > not. Some guys get to hear their friends talk about that 'great piece of > a$$' the other night, or how some b**ch woman got that promotion over > him, 'cuz she was probably bangin' the boss. Unfortunately, many men > listen to this on a day-to-day basis, and are degraded by the 'guys' if > they say something counteractive to that opinion. Their ability to be > 'one of the guys' may be challenged, and sometimes even their sexual > orientation is questioned. All because they don't agree with the sexist > comments being thrown about the room. You know, this never occurred to me. Thank you for raising the point. The problem is that it must be VERY difficult to listen to that as a guy and not be affected. To become accustomed to tuning it out, for example, so that one doesn't even notice when it happens to a woman right in front of them. I really think this is a key reason (one that's always eluded me in the past) why so many men JUST DO NOT SEEM TO NOTICE. > Us women are not completely innocent, either. The pendulum has swung > the other way and it's considered 'okay' by many women to put down men. I find this extremely sad. :( > Anyway, I get kind of tired of hearing how only women get sexist > comments. Men get a lot of it, too, and often they don't get as much > support when they try and stick up for themselves. My late husband was being pursued by a female staff member at the place where he was going to grad school. It was pretty bad, but he was afraid (in part because she was a sexual harassment *investigator*) that people would take her word over his. He was afraid that he would be thrown out of grad school. The night of his death, she told him that she had brought up to her boss that HE was harassing HER. He was absolutely in a panic and was complaining of high blood pressure. Less than six hours after she told him this, he died of a hemorrhagic stroke (typically brought on by exceedingly high blood pressure). His blood pressure was 260/160 when the ambulence arrived. *I* believed him and *I* would have helped, but in seeing the obstacles that I went through trying to resolve the issue, I really got a feel for what men go through. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
>> Us women are not completely innocent, either. The pendulum has swung >> the other way and it's considered 'okay' by many women to put down men. > >I find this extremely sad. :( It's a bad habit. I don't think a lot of women even realize they do it (sound familiar?). The comic strip Sylvia has "Bad Girl Chats" in which if they slip into male-bashing they have to "feed the kitty"--put money into a jar, just as you would if you were trying to break a bad habit of swearing or some such. Keep your ears open. You may be surprised at how often you or your friends slip into that bad habit. I was. L -- Siprelle & Associates: Distinctive Web Design Since 1994 Lynn Siprelle, President: Newest Associate Josie Ark born 9/9/97 Business: lynn@siprelle com | Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portfolio: http://www.siprelle.com/ | TNH: http://www.newhomemaker.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots (long)
Jernej Zajc wrote: (stuff removed) > And BTW, if you don't let be hurt you cannot be. Admittedly > this is not easy but it is possible. This also is only a > suggestion, but you could try it before flaming me back > again for it not being an option for you. > > Nejc > > -- > ''Share and Enjoy.'' > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org I find this a little on the questionable side. I mean it doesn't work in case of physical attack for sure in many cases. It is hard to state this categorically. I mean the question is whether "an image can hurt you..." or influence you in any way you don't want to be influenced. It is not a black and white thing...Images do have power, if not why can advertisers and especially politicos use them so well? Have Fun, Sends Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots (long)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote:
> Your militant stand seems to stand on your way of clear sight.
> Please don't take this as offense. You are evidently not
> overexaggerating but rather seeing evil in a suggestion that
> was not offered as good one or the right one or any ultimate
> solution.
Let me get this straight
Original poster complains about behavior that we can mostly agree is bad
(and if you don't, you should attack whether or not that behavior is bad,
not the original poster's name)
You post a response ('change your name') that (at least one of the
following, perhaps more)
1. blames the original poster ('if you chagned your name, it
woudln't happen')
2. suggests that the complained about behavior is okay, without
giving any reason as to why
3. suggests that the behavior should be ignored, which would be
rather hypocritical, since you are not ignoring other behavior that isn't
nearly as 'bad' (i.e. this discussion), or downright
*IF* the original poster had said or implied that the problem was personal
(i.e. that the behavior scared her personally, or otherwise was a problem
in more than a general way) your advice would have been appropriate. Since
the post was a condemnation of the behavior of others, *not* a 'help me
please', your advice was out of line. On top of that, your advice was
rather typical of people trying to blame women for their problems -- it
really isn't that much of a jump between 'change your nick' and 'change
your clothes' (which btw, doesn't work, no matter what the damn myths say)
both answer to the same attitude -- that the person complaining is somehow
responsible for the inappropriate behavior.
Now how, exactly, does my 'militant' stand stand in the way of 'clear
sight'?
> More about it in reply to Ingrid.
I read it. I think you're missing somethign important, which is that your
responses, whether or not they are *meant* to sound hostile and boorish,
are coming off that way. Don't be too shocked that they are being reacted
to in that way.
> You didn't give me even one.
I'm a bad person to ask. I hate language.
'chick' is a slang word for female...whether it has connotations of age or
degredation is up for debate.
> What is dyke? IIRC it is a word for a lesbian? It's hard
> to discuss colloqial connotations of words in slang of a
> foreign language.
true enough
> Dunno; I haven't seen this on any list I am on. If I was,
> I'd unsubscribe, or, if the list would suit me really well
> otherwise, propose that list needs a moderator.
I've seen it on moderated lists (it depends on the moderator, of course).
Since I don't know what lists you are on, I cannot comment on why you
haven't seen it.
> After three such posts people got angry (mostly men,
> women ignored him) and he was warned. He has been quiet
> since.
It took three.
I could argue that on most lists, three off topic posts of any type would
get me grouched at..especially really stupid off topic posts...but I would
probably be picking nits.
> > > What about ignoring it? I experienced it also from women and if
> > > ignored, it sorted itself out. And no it is not happening
> > > constantly at all :-) It's very rare, actually.
> I was talking about the same thing only in opposite
> direction. Female to male. Got it? It IS rare, at least
> according to my experience and that was what I was
> talking about. Read it all before you complain.
I did read it all. 'And no it is not happening constantly at all' seems
pretty clear to me...
> Re: guy on bus: raising a voice in public shows that such
> idiots often are also incredible cowards.
Yes, and also shows that fellow busriders will look at you like you are
nuts, usually. there have been exceptions.
> I know what you mean, but how many people know nowadays
> that swastika used to be a symbol of sun, and how many
> people know that direction of "rotation" is different?
very very few
> But you are mixing apples and oranges anyway. Symbols
> have been abused countless times in history since they
> are a little bit more abstract than pictures of scantily
> clad women. Aren't they?
Yes and no. There's two separate premises going on here -- the first is
that pictures of scantily clad females (and this is a rather symbolic use,
if you think about it) have been historically used to 'mark' male
territory...the second I'm not sure I can sucessfully defend yet (largely
because it only sounds like it's defined, it's not) has to do with why
that particular tactic works.
BTW, the display of porn, nudie pics, girly calendars, etc has been upheld
in court as creating a 'hostile work environment' at workplaces in sexual
harrassment and discrimination suits in the US...this is germane here, I
think.
> Just for a speculation, cross used to be symbol of
> penetration in some cultures. Did you know that?
Somewhere in the back of my head. I havne't played with symbols in a long
time...
> The premise about such pictures "marking male t
Re: [issues] Screenshots (long)
Dakota Surmonde wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote: > > If you can't accept that pin-ups can not be looked at as > > objectification then please be honest and write down that > > the subject is simply not debatable for you. > > Yes and no. So far the only thing that I can totally say for sure is that > there are some pictures which are objectifying. One of these days, the > conversation might get beyond that point, if it ever gets a chance to get > beyond the > yes-sexism-exists-no-we-aren't-talking-about-banning-porn-or-even-restricting-it > stage. Ok. Let's raise some points, mark them as *undebatable*, and see if we can move on from debating them. 1. Sexism exists. It affects both genders. 2. 'Girlie pictures' offend and upset some (not all!) people. Of both genders. (I use the term to include equivalent images of males. And I'm not interested in discussing what constitutes or doesn't constitute a 'girlie pic'.) 3. Symbols and icons have power. 4. We are not discussing censorship. We are not intending to censor. So. Can everyone accept these as premises, from which we can /further/ the discussion - and maybe bring it back towards 'how all this affects linux'? > I'm still back on defining what the > problem is, and then discussing what should be done about it. You're > already fighting against it and I don't even know what I'm fighting on > this front. Yes. I'm still in problem-definition mode myself. Hopefully stating a few non-arguables will help.. please. > > If you understand roots of something you may be able to > > deal with it better. Mind you it was a speculation not a > > grounded fact. > > I spend a good bit of time trying to fidn the roots of things That's what we're trying to do. Going into side-issues, and arguing side-issues, is hindering us. > > I am enjoying the debate. You should too. It's just a debate > > not hardwork of saving the world. > > Yes and no. A fair chunk of it is just that I quit smoking and for the > next week or so I'm going to be dealing with the panic attacks from hell. > that's life. When it's productive, I'm enjoying it. When it's being dragged into rehashing stuff that most of us in the debate have already said 'it's not about that', it gets very very tiring. As Vinnie said: "How many times do I have to say this: It's not about the clothes" We're not debating whether pornography is or is not evil. I *LIKE* pornography, especially really nice stuff of .. ahem. We're interested in the *symbol* of the 'girlie-pic' and what it represents and whether it has power and what that power is. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots (even longer)
Warning: -horribly- long post though I've tried to snip sections. I've been reading the entire thread but have been too busy to get involved, much as I would have liked to, until now. For the record, I am in agreement with those who see this as more an issue of context than content. I have no problems with the idea of pictures of women with few clothes on, or none, or in positions which to some (all?) people are provocative, as a general category. To me, it's not the pictures, it's where they're found and the associations they carry in that area. I don't object to the pictures that come up (or would if I weren't using Lynx) if I click links off www.naughty.com or www.eroticstories.com. Because in the context of that, they're expected, and they're what people clicking those links are expecting to get. I would object if I went to a site which was purportedly about how to make a theme or use a graphical app and all the pictures were of scantily-clad women, because they're not necessary there, and they send the same "if you don't like this you'll have to put up with it" signals that some people say they find as women in generally male job. Similarly, icons like that for the irc client BitchX (woman in a bikini with a BitchX label) annoy me, because I think it's not a clever pun but vaguely offensive; and it only makes sense if you know what the program does. It's not exactly saying "irc program", is it? It's just a gratuitous female image to no point. Anyway, that said, On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 12:58:51AM +0200 or thereabouts, Jernej Zajc wrote: > Vinnie Surmonde wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote: > > > > > > What about changing your nick? > > > > First, I consider that response different from 'Well if you walk down a > > street in a short skirt after dark aren't you asking for it?' only in > > degree. > > Your militant stand seems to stand on your way of clear sight. I realise that you're not writing in your first language, but I have to say that you're not coming across too well here. You're coming across as abrupt, not inclined to listen to what people are saying, assuming a bit too much about them, and more interested in telling other people what you think than listening to what they think. I don't see anything militant in Vinnie's assessment, and as Alice said earlier, why should I have to change my name? It's my name, dammit. [chick] > > ask a hundred people and you'll get a hundred answers > You didn't give me even one. 'chick' means so many different things. Actually, to me (living in Wales), it sounds American, and I associate it with, hm.. the world as portrayed in "Grease", perhaps? That time period, and (young) men discussing women. [flaming and abusive language on lists] > Dunno; I haven't seen this on any list I am on. If I was, > I'd unsubscribe, or, if the list would suit me really well > otherwise, propose that list needs a moderator. I think Vinnie's right. As mailing lists go, this has been a very civilised and stimulating one so far. [from symbols to the symbolism of pictures] > The premise about such pictures "marking male territory" > is yours not mine. Where did you get it from? There are some work environments in which girlie pictures on the wall are more common. You mention later the situation of seering girlie pics in garages, which are here (UK) still mostly a male business. I think this one, in fact, is so common that it was used as a base in one of the X-files episodes? (People going mad and killing others, after paranoid attacks? "All done, bye bye" at the end.) That episode wouldn't have worked nearly so well if the initial environments (a production line, a queue for the cashpoint, taking your car for a service) hadn't been easily recognisable to viewers. Garage. Girlie pics. Intimidating in some vague way. (Okay, it gets more graphic in the episode, but..) > Also I don't see much difference between someone's home and > public display. If it was disrespectful it would have been > in either case, no difference here. Ah. Here I disagree, and again, I think it's the issue of context rather than content. What people choose to decorate their walls and computer screens with at home is their business. What people put up in their work environment or a place shared by other people is, to me, different. Whether the image is disrespectful is a matter of taste. If, knowing that others may find it so, someone puts a picture like that on a screenshot that other people at work can see, -that-, to me, is the disrespect: deciding that your opinion of it outweighs their opinion of it. > But that's not the point. You are comparing a website that > not even has a company standing behind it with work > environment which is supposed to be at least a bit formal. > Workplace ethics has some Net-paralell in formal sites > like www.sun.com -- you won't find a pin-up there -- and > informal sites compare to informal atmosphere in some > gara
Re: [issues] Screenshots (long)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote: > Ingrid Schupbach wrote: > > Firstly, I didn't suggest you change it into a male nick. > I for one have a neutral one. > But to the point. > If I give you some advice which is evidently able only to > cure the symptoms I don't expect to get strong-worded reply > about it not curing the cause. I thought that was clear. > And BTW, if you don't let be hurt you cannot be. Admittedly > this is not easy but it is possible. This also is only a > suggestion, but you could try it before flaming me back > again for it not being an option for you. On this subject of how women get treated in society, men and women are often so far apart in our perceptions and experiences that it's hard to even have a successful dialogue. What seems acceptable to each of us comes across as hurtful to the other. Unwittingly, I seem to have created a great case in point here. I certainly didn't intend to "flame" anyone. In fact, I felt like I had been biting my tongue after several of the responses that have been posted here. Yet the suggestion that I change my nick (which is "ingrid" or "1ngr1d" btw), just reminded me of the "just suck it up" attitude that makes my skin crawl. I know now that that's not what you intended. Similarly, my response was designed to reflect how strongly I feel, and to demonstrate why going into hiding or just shutting up isn't my strategy of choice. But just like I misunderstood/misperceived your response, you misunderstood mine. This is an emotional, personal topic for all of us, and trying to achieve greater understanding is hard. The problem is that we all see and hear other's statements through the lens of our own lives and experiences. Hence, the same screenshot obviously says tremendously different things to different observers. Sadly, the experience of many women in Linux is that we're either ignored or disrespected; and this affects the way we interpret the statements and actions of the men we encounter. It may be true that I'm now too prone to see things negatively, and that my contribution to fixing the problem is to stop tending to assume the worst. Yet solving this problem will require a contribution from everyone. Ingrid [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
> How is this allowed to happen? I realize no one wants to go out and get > themselves shot, > and the women are limited in what they can do to help themselves if they > aren't allowed > to leave the house, but are all the men just standing by, feeling that > it doesn't concern > them? Don't these goons have mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, etc > and were these women > totally unable to communicate anything to them? > > If it happened there, why not here or anywhere? One comment though... as we see in Islamic cultures, the system of veiling and seclusion does not indicate that the men are just "standing by" while their women live horrible lives of slavery and such. If their system of covering themselves and not leaving the homes is cultural (and is similar to the Islamic system), they are likely socially fine. Do the women with children in this culture have husbands or do they have children on their own? If they have husbands, I do not understand why it is so vital that the women beg or work. Except in comparison to our own society... then we find it harder to understand. What was this society like before the militia group came in? Tribal African, Muslim (lots of Africa has Muslim influences), Christian? In North Eastern Brazil, where the conditions are horrible and women get pregnant ~10 times to have ~3 children, a woman said: "Shame is for those who steal, not for those who have to beg to feed their children". We have to be careful when looking at other cultures and evaluating them from our point of view. :o) -nicole -- http://colby.dhs.org @ Colby - me! http://ghettobox.dhs.org \|/ ghettoBOX - home! http://nightspell.dhs.org | NightSpell - irc.dal.net! http://technopagan.dhs.org / \ TechnoPagan - spirituality! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, ae wrote: > > > > > Explaining sexism to a male is really difficult, though gay/bi men will > > > sometimes understand if they are gorgeous. > > > > Objection, Your Honours! Some males grasp sexism and some don't, > > It wasn't whether or not they grasped it that I saw as the issue -- it was > trying to EXPLAIN it. By definition, if you have to explain it, they don't > understand. I meant "grasping after explanation" otherwise it wouldn't make much sense. Given males and females who don't understand sexism, I can't see why average males (non gay/non bi and non gorgeous) should have more problems understanding an attempted explanation than average females. Both (the average male and the average female) are not educated to be very sensitive about sexism. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Nils said: > > >Objection, Your Honours! Some males grasp sexism and some don't, > ...snip... > > >it). Some people might consider your statement a rather sexist one, > >don't you think? Just because a relevant share of males are > chauvinist pigs, this doesn't mean that this is true for all males. > > If you are a non-sexist (male or female) great! > > I hope you will also speak out whenever you hear males being sexist - In general yes. Sometimes (depends on if the person put down can handle it by herself), I just lean back, watch the battle and applaud afterwards :-) To be serious: not every person wants to get unsolicited assistance in such cases. > I hope you don't conclude (and if you don't, congrats!) that this is > not your issue when it is females that are being discriminated just > because (sorry, I'm just guessing) you are not female. Congrats, you guessed right :-). Oppression is oppression regardless of whether someone belongs to the oppressed group of people (and I have a strong opinion on people oppressing others, be assured). I just bashed about a statement that could be considered sexist -- if males should be careful about what they say, females should, too. I guess, I've not been careful enough, hm? Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Neil ''Fred'' Picciotto wrote: > ae wrote: > >> Explaining sexism to a male is really difficult, though gay/bi men will > >> sometimes understand if they are gorgeous. > > nils wrote: > > Objection, Your Honours! Some males grasp sexism and some don't, it's just > > the same as with females (though I think more females than males will > > understand sexism because a female person more likely falls a victim to > > it). Some people might consider your statement a rather sexist one, don't > > you think? Just because a relevant share of males are chauvinist pigs, > > this doesn't mean that this is true for all males. > > i think that explaining sexism to anyone is really difficult. of course, > like anything, if the person you're explaining it to already understands > (whether they're male or female), then it's a moot point. and as you say, > more women understand sexism than men, though certainly there are women who > do not. so i think it's a perfectly fair statement to say that explaining > sexism to a male is really difficult. i also think that explaining racism She said, that it were more difficult to explain sexism to a male person than to a female (I think we can agree on that). This makes sense if a) males are "intellectually less flexible" than females or b) she experienced it that way (which wouldn't explain why you had to be gay/bi and gorgeous at the same time to understand it). Being a little touchy I assumed the worst immediately. Oh well. > or homophobia is really difficult, and white people and straight people are > by far the least likely to already understand those. so i don't think it's > racist or homophobic to say that it's hard to explain racism to white > people or homophobia to straight people. I think you shouldn't draw the line between males and females or black and white or gay and straight people. What matters is if someone is open-minded or not. To exaggerate what you said, one could say "I don't think it's sexist to say that it's hard to explain tech to females (because they don't have much contact to it)". I don't say it, so you can put your flamethrowers aside :-). What irritated me was the "will sometimes understand if they are gorgeous" part -- only gay/bi, only sometimes and only if they're gorgeous? This is either very fatalistic or sexist, I assumed the latter for which I apologize. > in any case, nils, you seem to be putting words into ae's mouth, which is a > common thing to do when you disagree with someone else, but which in my > mind only serves to make your argument less convincing. she never said > that no males grasp sexism, and she certainly never said that all males are > chauvinist pigs... We all fall into our own pits here, I think (wrt putting words in someone else's mouth): I said "a relevant share" and it was my opinion I expressed, I didn't want to lay it in anyones mouth except my own. IMO 1 out of 10 or 20 (this is a random guess, no studies to back it, yadda) _is_ a relevant share. If it weren't a relevant share, few people would be upset. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
Nicole said: >What was this society like before the militia group came in? Tribal African, Muslim (lots of Africa has Muslim influences), Christian? It sounds like the women had a fair degree of freedom before: another quote from the website: Prior to the Civil War and Taliban control, especially in Kabul, the capital, women in Afghanistan were educated and employed: 50% of the students and 60% of the teachers at Kabul University were women, and 70% of school teachers, 50% of civilian government workers, and 40% of doctors in Kabul were women. The Taliban claim to follow a pure, fundamentalist Islamic ideology, yet the oppression they perpetrate against women has no basis in Islam. Within Islam, women are allowed to earn and control their own money, and to participate in public life. The 55-member Organization of Islamic Conference has refused to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's official government. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, regarded by many as an ultraconservative, fundamentalist organization, has denounced the Taliban's decrees. >Do the women with children in this culture have husbands or do they have >children on their own? If they have husbands, I do not understand why it >is so vital that the women beg or work. Except in comparison to our own >society... then we find it harder to understand. I think the problem is that there have been various wars in that region, so there are a great many widows who no longer have the support of a husband. another quote from the website: The Taliban issued a declaration last week which states that the Taliban will now allow impoverished widows with no other means of income to leave their homes to work. They must follow certain conditions which are not completely explicit at this time. For example, these women are to refrain from wearing fashionable clothes, follow Islamic hejab, and dress modestly. It is unclear as to what degree of purda (or cover) the declaration requires. The declaration also states that these widows should not be working in the company of men. Married women are still forbidden to leave their homes to work without the permission of their husbands. (end quote) When topics like this came up in school, the teacher (male or female) would usually say something like: "Well what they do with **their** women is their business" and what makes me upset is that I saw **nothing wrong** with this statement - but women are a _majority_ of the world's population (51%) so who exactly are "they"? (If it was a question of what some hypothetical "they" does with "their" slaves or something like that, for some reason we see the problem much more clearly in that case) ~ ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Nicole Zimmerman wrote: > Do the women with children in this culture have husbands or do they have > children on their own? If they have husbands, I do not understand why it > is so vital that the women beg or work. Except in comparison to our own > society... then we find it harder to understand. That's mostly widows or divorced women (IIRC a muslim in countries like Iran(sp?), Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan can divorce from his wife just by speaking it out three times, can someone please yell "Middle Ages"?). > What was this society like before the militia group came in? Tribal > African, Muslim (lots of Africa has Muslim influences), Christian? Afghanistan is in the Middle East (Asia). It was Muslim before, I think. > We have to be careful when looking at other cultures and evaluating them > from our point of view. :o) I don't think it is valid to say that just because s.th. is "culture", that it's right. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Nils Philippsen wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Nils said: > > > > >Objection, Your Honours! Some males grasp sexism and some don't, > > ...snip... > > > > >it). Some people might consider your statement a rather sexist one, > > >don't you think? Just because a relevant share of males are > > chauvinist pigs, this doesn't mean that this is true for all males. > > > > If you are a non-sexist (male or female) great! > > > > I hope you will also speak out whenever you hear males being sexist - > > In general yes. Sometimes (depends on if the person put down can handle it > by herself), I just lean back, watch the battle and applaud afterwards :-) > To be serious: not every person wants to get unsolicited assistance in > such cases. > I would personally find it more important for men to object to the sexism that takes place out of women's earshot. I can defend myself, true, and I would prefer to do so rather than have some guy jump in and do it for me (in most cases). The place to combat it would be behind the scenes. If there weren't sexism out of earshot, then people wouldn't have to watch what they say, or be careful when members of the opposite sex were actually around, wouldn't you agree? I feel it important to bring up the subject of sexism when my female friends send around jokes that are demeaning to men. I think that is more effective then just doing it in public -- you can then be viewed as just jumping to someone's defense to score points or whatever, and your statements (no matter how true to your personal beliefs) can be easily viewed in that context to diminish them. However, pointing it out when there is no one of the opposite sex present makes it clear that the views are your own, and you are willing to stand up for them even when there is no perceived stake in it. Cat /././././././././././././././././././ The plural of anecdote is not data. \.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
While I agree that having a bunch of screenshots showing semi-clad women can be unwelcoming, I do not think they should be done with. After all, these are their idea of a cool theme, right? So, the women (or gay men, etc.) should come up with their own themes. Ones that would be more pleasing to their, and other like-minded folks, eyes. For the music lover, there's always the Playgirl pics of Peter Steele from Type O Negative. My background is a "music" background...it's usually a picture of Robin Finck (from nine inch nails, Cirque du Soleil, etc.). For the movie fan, capture a pic of Mel Gibson from Lethal Weapon, or the moon shot from Braveheart. Admit it: men aren't the only ones who objectify. Almost every woman I know (myself included) is more than willing to talk about the finer points of Mel G.'s rear, or movies where you get the absolute best exposure of David D.'s hiney. We aren't delicate little flowers, and I don't want anyone shielding the icky stuff from me to protect my feelings. Then again, my idea to combat my offense at the Hooters chain (oh, but it's *really* just a reference to *owls*!), is to start a chain restaurant in which all the wait staff are men dressed in muscle T's and thongs with a bird beak on it. And call the place "'Peckers." Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
Cat said: >I would personally find it more important for men to object to the sexism >that takes place out of women's earshot. I can defend myself, true, >and I would prefer to do so rather than have some guy jump in and do it >for me (in most cases). The place to combat it would be behind the >scenes. If there weren't sexism out of earshot, then people wouldn't have >to watch what they say, or be careful when members of the opposite sex >were actually around, wouldn't you agree? > >I feel it important to bring up the subject of sexism when my female >friends send around jokes that are demeaning to men. I think that is more >effective then just doing it in public -- you can then be viewed as just >jumping to someone's defense to score points or whatever, and your >statements (no matter how true to your personal beliefs) can be easily >viewed in that context to diminish them. However, pointing it out when >there is no one of the opposite sex present makes it clear that the views >are your own, and you are willing to stand up for them even when there is >no perceived stake in it. I agree - but you said it a lot more clearly than I did - thanks - -E. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>Perhaps. But after you hear "women can't do xx" (where xx is usually This is called "transference". Who the hell has said anything about women not being able to do things? We're talking about themes, and scantily-clad people in such, NOT your built-up angst over somethign random. /You've had a visitation by...\\ Brendan/Coolian And he's got painted toenails... http://www.thecia.net/users/coolian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>unfriendly atmosphere if I walk into a place that has girlie pictures all >over the walls. I do not think that most places (unless clearly >demarcated) that are inviting to both males and females generally have >adult pictures plastered up. Yah, gee, what fun. "Are those pictures clearly demarcated!?" "Dear Lord, let's get out of here..." Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>(and those of us who LIKE women too) are not allowed to appreciate the >female body, to take sexy pictures and share them with the world, or Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. /You've had a visitation by...\\ Brendan/Coolian And he's got painted toenails... http://www.thecia.net/users/coolian [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>There *is* an Adult section, and anything relating to nakedness is put >there. Problem solved. I don't believe its necessary to take it a step >further, and tell people not to put images of models in their screenshots. I already pointed this out and was promptly ignored. Possibly because it made sense and didn't give anyone room to argue annoying "I'm an oppressed minority in a hard, hard world" points. Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>does a model apply (and the model isn't ms. pac man)? Have you seen her in her lingerie shots? Oh baby. Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Cat said: > >I would personally find it more important for men to object to the > sexism > >that takes place out of women's earshot. I can defend myself, true, > >and I would prefer to do so rather than have some guy jump in and do it > > >for me (in most cases). The place to combat it would be behind the > >scenes. If there weren't sexism out of earshot, then people wouldn't > have > >to watch what they say, or be careful when members of the opposite sex > >were actually around, wouldn't you agree? > > > >I feel it important to bring up the subject of sexism when my female > >friends send around jokes that are demeaning to men. I think that is > more > >effective then just doing it in public -- you can then be viewed as > just > >jumping to someone's defense to score points or whatever, and your > >statements (no matter how true to your personal beliefs) can be easily > >viewed in that context to diminish them. However, pointing it out when > > >there is no one of the opposite sex present makes it clear that the > views > >are your own, and you are willing to stand up for them even when there > is > >no perceived stake in it. > > I agree - but you said it a lot more clearly than I did - thanks - > > -E. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org I would tend to agree. It would be an act of personal bravery. Certianly in the environment where these things happen. My theory is when someone presents some idea I don't like is to offer alternatives. Like the "She advanced because, she was having sex with the boss.." But that seems to work better than could out swinging. Like in an all male evironment, putting up pictures of women with "too many muscles". Get's a sort of "uggh!" reaction from many guys. They ask you why you did it, and you say: "Well you have pix of Miss Busty Beer Bikini Spectacular all around" That works a moderately well, to at least get guys thinking. I guess I am not worried about "sexual attraction" as I am about sort of reducing any group of people to some inferior status and make them effectively good for "only one thing..." Have Fun, Sends Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > >unfriendly atmosphere if I walk into a place that has girlie pictures all > >over the walls. I do not think that most places (unless clearly > >demarcated) that are inviting to both males and females generally have > >adult pictures plastered up. > > Yah, gee, what fun. > > "Are those pictures clearly demarcated!?" > > "Dear Lord, let's get out of here..." > > Brendan > Brendan, I meant that the *place* where the pictures are posted should be clearly demarcated -- as in, in the adult section of a website, or in a some type of club where they are expected, etc. etc. Not just randomly posted throughout sections or places where it is not apparent that they are or should be there. What did you think I meant? Fancy borders? Your comment was sort of unclear. Cat /././././././././././././././././././ The plural of anecdote is not data. \.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? > None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. for the record, I don't believe anyone has said this (though I've been accused of being sexist for *only* appreciating the female body ) Vinnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > I already pointed this out and was promptly ignored. Possibly because it > made sense and didn't give anyone room to argue annoying "I'm an oppressed > minority in a hard, hard world" points. Actually, the issue that there is an adult section has been brought up and discussed many times. The themes we are discussing are not 'adult' themes. Vinnie (wondering if you're just trolling) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > Those should be categorized under adult for anything involving unclad > bodies...Lump it into the Adult category, and then subdivide for > "scantily-clad, nude, sex" that doens't solve for the problem...I'm just revisiting this because you said that it was being ignored the (big) problem is that there are a lot of not-necessarily-purposeful-or-noticed-by-most-of-the-community issues that make the community less 'safe' for women... the (smaller) problem is that when they are brought up, the common reactions are to deny that a problem exists, or to rationalize it, or to tell women to ignore it. the (teeny) problem is that there are a few screenshots on themes.org with a few gratuitous sex shots. Vinnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>What did you think I meant? Fancy borders? Your comment was sort of >unclear. It was unclear because it was humor. Or attempting to be such. Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
>Actually, the issue that there is an adult section has been brought up and >discussed many times. The themes we are discussing are not 'adult' themes. If you were paying attention, you would have seen that I wasn't posting about "adult" themes either. I was talking about ANY theme with "adult" content. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
> > Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? > > None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. > > >for the record, I don't believe anyone has said this For the record, no one seems to understand any sort of humor. We all seem to be so locked into Politically Correct mode... [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
>the (big) problem is that there are a lot of >not-necessarily-purposeful-or-noticed-by-most-of-the-community issues that >make the community less 'safe' for women... God, how I wish a few of you people had ACTUAL problems to Talk about... >the (smaller) problem is that when they are brought up, the common >reactions are to deny that a problem exists, or to rationalize it, or to >tell women to ignore it. Millions have problems with spontaneously mutating into dogs, deny it and you're just part of the cover-up, man! >the (teeny) problem is that there are a few screenshots on themes.org with >a few gratuitous sex shots. Haven't seen any. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > > Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? > > > None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. > > > > > >for the record, I don't believe anyone has said this > > > For the record, no one seems to understand any sort of humor. We all seem > to be so locked into Politically Correct mode... -- J. Myers | "Death is not the greatest loss in life. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The greatest loss is what dies inside us www.fluxcapacitor.net | while we live." -- Norman Cousins [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
Brendan -- Do you honestly think that sexism doesn't exist? Or that it does but it is not a problem worth talking about? You have not stated this sentiment in so many words, but you do seem to be expressing it. Is this intended? Cat On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > >the (big) problem is that there are a lot of > >not-necessarily-purposeful-or-noticed-by-most-of-the-community issues that > >make the community less 'safe' for women... > > God, how I wish a few of you people had ACTUAL problems to Talk about... > > > >the (smaller) problem is that when they are brought up, the common > >reactions are to deny that a problem exists, or to rationalize it, or to > >tell women to ignore it. > > Millions have problems with spontaneously mutating into dogs, deny it and > you're just part of the cover-up, man! > > > > >the (teeny) problem is that there are a few screenshots on themes.org with > >a few gratuitous sex shots. > > Haven't seen any. > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > > /././././././././././././././././././ The plural of anecdote is not data. \.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > If you were paying attention, you would have seen that I wasn't posting > about "adult" themes either. I was talking about ANY theme with "adult" > content. Please re read comments about what the real problems here are... not to mention, why do you want to put all 'adult' content in one place? Vinnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > >the (big) problem is that there are a lot of > >not-necessarily-purposeful-or-noticed-by-most-of-the-community issues that > >make the community less 'safe' for women... > > God, how I wish a few of you people had ACTUAL problems to Talk about... If nobody here has ACTUAL problems to talk about, why don't you unsubscribe from the list and stop wasting your time with us? :) It's a mailing list for discussing issues, and comments are far more relevant when they do not boil down to: "I don't have anything intelligent to say, so I'm going to belittle your concerns without saying anything constructive about why I disagree." As far as I've heard, LinuxChix was created to provide a forum for those who are interested in Linux but tired of the harsh "penis war" environment the average Linux forum entails. If you aren't in search of this sort of "kindler, gentler" (and perhaps more intelligent) realm, maybe slashdot would better suit your needs. JM, tired of off-topic egocentricity but hoping it will die off -- J. Myers | "Death is not the greatest loss in life. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The greatest loss is what dies inside us www.fluxcapacitor.net | while we live." -- Norman Cousins [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Female Objectification of men (was: Screenshots)
Taylor wrote: > Admit it: men aren't the only ones who objectify. Almost every > woman I know (myself included) is more than willing to talk about > the finer points of Mel G.'s rear, or movies where you get the > absolute best exposure of David D.'s hiney. We aren't delicate > little flowers, and I don't want anyone shielding the icky stuff > from me to protect my feelings. Actually, the only person I've ever discussed this kind of issue with is my husband. I've *never* been part of a group of women (or a group of men, or a mixed group) who discusses such things. About guys OR girls. Am I wierd, or is everyone else? Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > > Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? > > > None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. > >for the record, I don't believe anyone has said this > For the record, no one seems to understand any sort of humor. We all seem > to be so locked into Politically Correct mode... You still haven't defined politically correct. However, it's commonly accepted that humour is marked in some way in email, as it's hard to bring things like laughter and smiles and other cues that the author is not being serious into an email without such marking. Since I see no smileys or tags, I (nor anyone else here) had any reason to believe it was humour, unless you suddenly believe we have (en masse) developed ESP (I haven't...) Your original post shows a lack of clues, one way or another. Vinnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > > > Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? > > > None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. > > > > > >for the record, I don't believe anyone has said this > > For the record, no one seems to understand any sort of humor. We all seem > to be so locked into Politically Correct mode... Try sounding humourous. You sound like you're trolling. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > God, how I wish a few of you people had ACTUAL problems to Talk about... How is this not an *actual* problem? > Millions have problems with spontaneously mutating into dogs, deny it and > you're just part of the cover-up, man! Would you like to offer some proof that 'millions are spontaneiously mutating into dogs'? You are right, if I were to be given prove of folks spontaneously mutating to canines, and I insisted it didn't happen, then I *would* be part of the problem (or 'cover up' as you term it) We (as a group) have shown proof that women are sometimes treated differently in geekdom, and we are attempting to explain (to ourselves, too) why certain icons are off-putting. > Haven't seen any. I posted links. Short of going over to your place, booting up your computer and opening the damn things myself, I'm not sure how much more you want me to do. Vinnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > >There *is* an Adult section, and anything relating to nakedness is put > >there. Problem solved. I don't believe its necessary to take it a step > >further, and tell people not to put images of models in their screenshots. > > I already pointed this out and was promptly ignored. Possibly because it > made sense and didn't give anyone room to argue annoying "I'm an oppressed > minority in a hard, hard world" points. Nope. Because it's beside the point, and ignores the point of the discussion. The point isn't how to fix the symptom, the point is to try to figure out WHY it's symptom and WHAT the underlying problem is. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
Brendan/Coolian wrote: > > >the (big) problem is that there are a lot of > >not-necessarily-purposeful-or-noticed-by-most-of-the-community issues that > >make the community less 'safe' for women... > > God, how I wish a few of you people had ACTUAL problems to Talk about... Funny. Seems to me that the 'issues' list is built to "discuss the larger abstract theoretical/philosophical issues related to Linux, the Open Source Movement, Women & Technology, etc" I do have actual problems to talk about. Salinity levels in the most arable land in Australia threatening to damage the ecosystem here. My brother's health. Getting a sapling out of my garden before it cracks the pavers. But they're not on-topic for this list. So I don't talk about them here. On-topic for this list is, among other things, the problem of things-that- make-the-linux-community-unsafe-or-unwelcoming-for-women. If you don't want to talk about this problem, find something else on-topic for this list to talk about. Anything to do with women, linux, open source, women-and-technology will do. But don't try to kill this thread just because you consider the problem trivial. It's NOT, for most of us, and its NOT TRIVIAL for any of us who are choosing to continue to discuss it. > >the (smaller) problem is that when they are brought up, the common > >reactions are to deny that a problem exists, or to rationalize it, or to > >tell women to ignore it. > > Millions have problems with spontaneously mutating into dogs, deny it and > you're just part of the cover-up, man! Let's put it this way: Have you perceived the problem of soil salinity in Australia? No. Didn't think so. Do you think it doesn't exist, just because you haven't perceived it? Probably not. Have you perceived a problem regarding incidental and accidental subtle exclusion of women in the linux community? No, obviously not. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Well, you say 'yes'. I say 'no'. Looks like you don't have anything useful to say on this topic. So please stop trying to quash it. You're PROOF of this second, smaller problem. Look at yourself. > >the (teeny) problem is that there are a few screenshots on themes.org with > >a few gratuitous sex shots. > > Haven't seen any. There've been URLs with them posted to the list during the discussions. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > For the record, no one seems to understand any sort of humor. We all seem > to be so locked into Politically Correct mode... There has been appreciated humor on here, it's mostly that YOU seem to have a communications problem with other people here. It's not about being PC. It's about being clueless. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > >the (big) problem is that there are a lot of > >not-necessarily-purposeful-or-noticed-by-most-of-the-community issues that > >make the community less 'safe' for women... > > God, how I wish a few of you people had ACTUAL problems to Talk about... Nice how you made it into an "us" (which would be you) vs. "them" (the women on this list) issue, isn't it? > Millions have problems with spontaneously mutating into dogs, deny it and > you're just part of the cover-up, man! Non-sequiturs really aren't helping. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Female Objectification of men (was: Screenshots)
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Actually, the only person I've ever discussed this kind of issue with > is my husband. I've *never* been part of a group of women (or a group > of men, or a mixed group) who discusses such things. About guys OR > girls. Frankly, I find talk about the quality of some dude's butt just as offensive as the talk about some woman's breasts. I don't bother. I might say someone is cute or good-looking, but in most cases I think the PERSON is cute. Their body really isn't a primary concern for me. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Screenshots
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Dakota Surmonde wrote: > > Millions have problems with spontaneously mutating into dogs, deny it and > > you're just part of the cover-up, man! > > Would you like to offer some proof that 'millions are spontaneiously > mutating into dogs'? I think you missed that he's saying we're all bitches. ;) -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:08:01 -0400, Brendan/Coolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >For the record, no one seems to understand any sort of humor. We all >seem to be so locked into Politically Correct mode... Or, more likely, your attempts at humor are just really bad. Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
> That's mostly widows or divorced women (IIRC a muslim in countries like > Iran(sp?), Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan can divorce from his wife just by > speaking it out three times, can someone please yell "Middle Ages"?). I'm not sure if that's quite right... but it is REALLY easy for the man to divorce women (like if they don't bear children) but very difficult to go the other way (the man has to be a pretty big bastard). > Afghanistan is in the Middle East (Asia). It was Muslim before, I think. Go go gadget geography! Sorry, I was in a rush and thinking "muslim people" and of the anthropology class I'm currently taking (one of the books we read was of an African culture). > > We have to be careful when looking at other cultures and evaluating them > > from our point of view. :o) > > I don't think it is valid to say that just because s.th. is "culture", > that it's right. Oh, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we can't really say it's 100% wrong for women to follow the Muslim system of "purdah" (veiling and seclusion) and so forth just because we think our society "works better" and whatnot. Just because the system would be really twisted here doesn't mean it's really twisted there... if that makes sense. If we're thinking America... (or most western cultures)... it would be very much a culture-shock to be put into that sort of position, especially militiously (is that even a word?). But, in a Muslim society, it would be less of a shock, more of an adjustment. The Koran says explicitly that women should "cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments...", so if they *were* a Muslim country/area previously, it'd likely just be a change from a previously "used" system to a more militant one. That, however, does not make some of the behaviour toward women in such cultures correct, nor does it mean women here are treated 100% with respect 100% of the time. -- http://colby.dhs.org @ Colby - me! http://ghettobox.dhs.org \|/ ghettoBOX - home! http://nightspell.dhs.org | NightSpell - irc.dal.net! http://technopagan.dhs.org / \ TechnoPagan - spirituality! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
> >Perhaps. But after you hear "women can't do xx" (where xx is usually > > This is called "transference". Who the hell has said anything about women > not being able to do things? We're talking about themes, and scantily-clad > people in such, NOT your built-up angst over somethign random. Well since you seem to have a lot of couth... To some degree it IS about built up "angst". After you hear that SO many times that you EXPECT it from the next man (or woman) you talk to about something technical, you begin to see things where others wouldn't, or at least to see things coming (even if they don't in the end...). If you have such a problem with "built up angst" what are you doing here? You don't seem to want to be productive. A thread in discussion may digress to other issues (ha! the name of the list!), and that does not make me stupid (which your tone of "voice" seems to imply I am). I was responding to Sio about another topic (which was beginning to digress from the scantily clad women beginnings). -- http://colby.dhs.org @ Colby - me! http://ghettobox.dhs.org \|/ ghettoBOX - home! http://nightspell.dhs.org | NightSpell - irc.dal.net! http://technopagan.dhs.org / \ TechnoPagan - spirituality! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
> I already pointed this out and was promptly ignored. Possibly because it > made sense and didn't give anyone room to argue annoying "I'm an oppressed > minority in a hard, hard world" points. Check again. There is no adult section. Someone else pointed that out, but you seem to have ignored it possibly because it made sense and didn't give you any room to argue annoying "you are not an oppressed minority in a hard, hard world" points. wm.themes.org animals, anime, art, cartoons, computers, engine, fantasy, holiday, misc, movies, music, nature, operating sys., people, pixmap, places, plain, products, science fiction, sports, vehicles, video games, web sites and this is the site the aforementioned screenshots appeared on. The same categories appear on e.themes.org (no adult section), as with as.themes.org, bb.themes.org, and icewm.themes.org. -- http://colby.dhs.org @ Colby - me! http://ghettobox.dhs.org \|/ ghettoBOX - home! http://nightspell.dhs.org | NightSpell - irc.dal.net! http://technopagan.dhs.org / \ TechnoPagan - spirituality! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Women and the Open Source Community (was screenshots)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Nils Philippsen wrote: > I don't think it is valid to say that just because s.th. is "culture", > that it's right. likewise it's not valid to refute any cultural mechanism... I see this often in religious arguments... and well, the refutation of all social/psychological devices as worthless is ethnocentric, unfortunately that perspective might as well deem the idea of ethnocentricism as an informal fallacy is popycock... the same sort of attitude that produced diagrams of protohuman "speciation" that painted the great white caucasian man as the one, true, pure race... not that I'm trying to pass this ad homonym off to you ;-> but can you see how such a system that has evolved might have some residual bennefit... talk about "freedom", talk about "fairness", but take all that with a grain of salt and really consider that this is a world completely foreign to your own ultra-upperclass (in comparison with the rest of the world) existance... -mekD p.s. wsu has some pretty kick-ass anthropology professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > >Perhaps. But after you hear "women can't do xx" (where xx is usually > > > This is called "transference". Who the hell has said anything about women > not being able to do things? We're talking about themes, and scantily-clad > people in such, NOT your built-up angst over somethign random. ummm, can you think in more than one direction at once? the theme is of course scantily clad women in screenshots, linux as a beer commercial etc... which by the way is all about classical roles of men and women and the steriotypes that have been extended and persist today... like women as sexual objects... like women as brainless creatures... like women can't do any "man's work"... like "women can't do xx" see the connection now? sure you'd have built up angst too if you were a woman... isn't that what this [EMAIL PROTECTED] is about? sorry you don't own this thread ;-> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote: > Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know? > None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them. or we'd have to respect others who might have ideas about sex that aren't quite the same as us... or do you think that forcing porn down people's throats is a good thing? yes... let's desencitize that 74 year old lady trying to pick out a nice desktop for the computer a young friend is setting up for her (a scenario I know is happening)... sure one death from stroke (or at least a shocked old lady and her embarrased friend)... what is that compared to freedom of speech? live a little... think about people other than yourself... appreciate diverse ideas... or don't and be an asshole a little while longer, but don't pass it off as intelligent conversation! -mekD Fed UP! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: Fw: [issues] Screenshots - on a lighter note
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Dakota Surmonde wrote: > not to mention, why do you want to put all 'adult' content in one place? so that if you want to avoid it you *can* otherwise you just happen to come across it... when it's too late like a football game, we put walls and grand stands and big marching bands around it so that ignorant passerbys don't mistake it for a tea party and get tackled ;-> sure that's a silly allegory (with good reason), if a football game (american football for all the intn'l folks) all of a sudden popped up in a bussy bus terminal, wouldn't it be rediculous of the creators of this game to pass off any injuries as acceptable affects of their game? of course not! likewise it's rediculous to expect that everyone "just accept" pornogrophy wherever it might appear so you have a big problem! not everyone is sure what pornogrophy is (in the afforementioned Islamic society a woman in a one piece swimsut would be pornographic), so maybe as a rule of thumb don't do anything that you couldn't do in real life, in your own localized culture... that way you can genuinely pretend cultural ignorance when someone complains... and then maybe learn what someone else thinks is obscene... I'm deffinately not for censorship, but a ratings system may be welcome... (don't even ask me how to impliment this!) -mekD [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
