Re: [issues] Not meant as an insult...
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > Ya know Steve, you seem to be missing the overall point. :) > > > > Well I take that as a joke. I mean we are more than out physical looks. > > Because, as I mentioned some in some other message, it is sad that the > > advertiser concept of engineer, does have the image of what "an engineer > > should look like." We techies and engineers come in various types and > > sizes. > > Like I said, you seem to be missing the overall point. > > You've taken one step in the right direction with the above, but you're > missing about 99% and thinking you've gotten all the way there. > > > P.S. The overall point to me is that even though it is a temptation to > > judge ny looks we really really shouldn't > > Like I said...if one were an extremely shallow person (not worth getting > to know) one might judge on looks. But that wasn't the point. > > -- > _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 What Am I missing, what really shoud be done.I am honestly interested in this point, and what would and shouldn;t be done. I approach it from an artistic point of view. Whare people tying to do wth the images What they present, and all that. I pay some attention to it. I guess what I am sating it what do people feel is the fix. In fact in the ./ thing I was interested in te high school profiling things but that was swamped out by Robo's articles on getting traditional girls. I have heard this for ages, in books and tthe like, but ai have never heard of the high lvel of profiing of "questionable peopleA" which really has me worried.' Have Fun, Sends Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > Ya know Steve, you seem to be missing the overall point. :) > > > > Well I take that as a joke. I mean we are more than out physical looks. > > Because, as I mentioned some in some other message, it is sad that the > > advertiser concept of engineer, does have the image of what "an engineer > > should look like." We techies and engineers come in various types and > > sizes. > > Like I said, you seem to be missing the overall point. > > You've taken one step in the right direction with the above, but you're > missing about 99% and thinking you've gotten all the way there. > > > P.S. The overall point to me is that even though it is a temptation to > > judge ny looks we really really shouldn't > > Like I said...if one were an extremely shallow person (not worth getting > to know) one might judge on looks. But that wasn't the point. > > -- > _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 But U have tons of John Malloy (dress for success) telling me how to dress. Beyond common decency boradly considered. I have been upbraided in tnetervies and walked out because of this. Please tell me what I am missing, gentluyy. Why do I have to wear a monkey suit which I hate to an interview. Why can't I just appear as I feel comfortable? I here this all the time, from cut my hair to wear a suit. I really think it sucks. I see no difference at all in thew whole thing please explain the whole thing preferably withoug a flame war over I can "change my clothing". I am tired of being told my brightly colored Hawaiian dinner jacket was a clown suit. Or aa brightly colored ascot. Who cares of I color my finger nails. Why is this important? Maybe when I color my finger nails for Halloween i.e. today. I'll just leave then that way year around. It doesn't have anyting to do withj my skill or intellect or ability to think creatively. I don't want to satart a flame war, please explain what I am missing. I am tired of it all, whether it is being rathed by skins color, bra size, cut of clothing of or anything like that. They seem all meaningless to me. Except for thjeatrical puposes. Please kindly explain what the differences are. Have Fun, Sends Steve P.S>. It is a geek issue we dress unlik others. Why do I have to make people in personell happy, and why should I care...other than just raw power, and what is difference between she got hired for her looks and he for his clothese. OTher than one is easier to change...Please someone kindly explain [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
Steve Kudlak wrote: > P.S>. It is a geek issue we dress unlik others. Why do I have to make people in > personell happy, and why should I care...other than just raw power, and what is > difference between she got hired for her looks and he for his clothese. OTher > than one is easier to change...Please someone kindly explain The issues of appearance and objectification are rather complex. I'll address them separately - because they are separate. (Which might be what you're missing). Neither of these issues are quite the one discussed in the recent conversations, however. That will be yet ANOTHER section. Professional appearance: * The clothes you choose to wear to a job interview give the interviewer a quick idea of how professional your attitude is, how much attention to detail you pay, how reliable you might be. If your clothing is missing a button or your shoes are unshined, they can (rightly or wrongly) conclude that your attention to detail is sloppy and you might fail to initialise a variable or let a program ship incompletely tested. This is gender and appearance-irrelevent, it's a test of your ability to _pay attention_ and complete a task well. It can also be a design test - can you take the raw material (your body) and produce an appealing and user friendly package (your final grooming). If you've got a track record in the industry, you can skip this test. My husband does - he's a known geek and he usually gets jobs through other geeks. But if you're young and new and unknown, approach the job interview clothing test as a design thing. * If you're going to be in a front-office environment, where 'suits' or other customers will walk in and will see you regularly, they will judge the entire company on your grooming. It's unfair, it's wrong, but it HAPPENS. And your prospective boss knows it. So your prospective boss won't hire you (if you're a front office person) unless your grooming screams 'professional'. Again, this is gender irrelevent. * If you're directly interacting with 'suits' or customers, your mannerisms, speech patterns and written communication must also scream 'professional' - or the company will suffer for it. Yet again, gender irrelevent. * Everyone knows it's not fair for a company to be judged on an individual person, but since a company can't exactly take its customers to the Equal Opportunity Commission, companies will continue to hire staff for customer- interaction roles who they judge won't freak customers out and send them running to rival companies. And can you really blame them? And would you expect to get a long-term job with a company that didn't? If you want to dress as-you-feel-comfortable, train for a back-office position and build a reputation for being incredibly good at it. THEN the company won't give a damn what you wear as long as you don't scare the horses. (Well. Some won't. Some still will.) Objectification/nudie-pics/hired-for-looks: First, note that BOTH genders do get objectified, both genders have nudie-pics taken of them, and both genders get hired for looks. It seems to be more frequent for women, but it happens to both. * Objectification is the term for the situation where a person's /self/ is ignored. This is commonly in favour of their body, as in the classic 'nudie pic' - a picture for people to fantasise over and dream about having that body in bed with them. * Objectification also happens in other circumstances - sweatshop workshops are (arguably) objectifying their workers. (This is open for debate, of course). * There is, somewhere, a distinction between a 'nudie pic' and artistic erotica. This is important to note - and it sits somewhere around where the person in the image is seen as a /person/ and where he (she) is seen as a /body/. * When someone is hired solely for their looks, and not for their ability, it is also objectification. (When two people of equal ability are available and the _better groomed_ one is hired, it is usually for the reasons stated in the section above - and not because the hirer is interested in meeting up with the person for drinks and dinner.) Recent discussions hinged around: 1. whether it is appropriate to have objectifying and/or erotic images in places where a person might come across them unaware and/or unwilling. 2. whether objectifying and/or erotic images imply that a community is unwelcoming of categories of people (minors, women...) 3. whether the people posting these images are aware that there are people who feel unwelcome where these images are posted. 4. a question someone asked, wanting to know what the problems would be if he wrote a card-game thing for linux and made it available for pornographic images to be on the cards. 5. a number of other issues which came up around the topics of objectification, erotica, and whether and how the linux community is welcoming to women. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely se
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > P.S>. It is a geek issue we dress unlik others. Why do I have to make people in > > personell happy, and why should I care...other than just raw power, and what is > > difference between she got hired for her looks and he for his clothese. OTher > > than one is easier to change...Please someone kindly explain > > > > The issues of appearance and objectification are rather complex. I'll address > them separately - because they are separate. (Which might be what you're > missing). > Neither of these issues are quite the one discussed in the recent > conversations, > however. That will be yet ANOTHER section. > > Professional appearance: > > * The clothes you choose to wear to a job interview give the interviewer > a quick idea of how professional your attitude is, how much attention > to detail you pay, how reliable you might be. If your clothing is missing > a button or your shoes are unshined, they can (rightly or wrongly) conclude > that your attention to detail is sloppy and you might fail to initialise a > variable or let a program ship incompletely tested. > This is gender and appearance-irrelevent, it's a test of your ability to > _pay attention_ and complete a task well. It can also be a design test - > can you take the raw material (your body) and produce an appealing and > user friendly package (your final grooming). > If you've got a track record in the industry, you can skip this test. My > husband does - he's a known geek and he usually gets jobs through other geeks. > But if you're young and new and unknown, approach the job interview clothing > test as a design thing. > > * If you're going to be in a front-office environment, where 'suits' or > other customers will walk in and will see you regularly, they will judge > the entire company on your grooming. It's unfair, it's wrong, but it > HAPPENS. And your prospective boss knows it. So your prospective boss won't > hire you (if you're a front office person) unless your grooming screams > 'professional'. Again, this is gender irrelevent. > > * If you're directly interacting with 'suits' or customers, your > mannerisms, speech patterns and written communication must also scream > 'professional' - or the company will suffer for it. Yet again, gender > irrelevent. > > * Everyone knows it's not fair for a company to be judged on an individual > person, but since a company can't exactly take its customers to the Equal > Opportunity Commission, companies will continue to hire staff for customer- > interaction roles who they judge won't freak customers out and send them > running to rival companies. > And can you really blame them? And would you expect to get a long-term job > with a company that didn't? > If you want to dress as-you-feel-comfortable, train for a back-office > position and build a reputation for being incredibly good at it. THEN the > company won't give a damn what you wear as long as you don't scare the > horses. > (Well. Some won't. Some still will.) > > Objectification/nudie-pics/hired-for-looks: > > First, note that BOTH genders do get objectified, both genders have nudie-pics > taken of them, and both genders get hired for looks. It seems to be more > frequent for women, but it happens to both. > > * Objectification is the term for the situation where a person's /self/ > is ignored. This is commonly in favour of their body, as in the classic > 'nudie pic' - a picture for people to fantasise over and dream about > having that body in bed with them. > > * Objectification also happens in other circumstances - sweatshop workshops > are (arguably) objectifying their workers. (This is open for debate, of > course). > > * There is, somewhere, a distinction between a 'nudie pic' and artistic > erotica. This is important to note - and it sits somewhere around where > the person in the image is seen as a /person/ and where he (she) is seen > as a /body/. > > * When someone is hired solely for their looks, and not for their ability, > it is also objectification. > > (When two people of equal ability are available and the _better groomed_ > one is hired, it is usually for the reasons stated in the section above - > and not because the hirer is interested in meeting up with the person for > drinks and dinner.) > > Recent discussions hinged around: > > 1. whether it is appropriate to have objectifying and/or erotic images in > places where a person might come across them unaware and/or unwilling. > > 2. whether objectifying and/or erotic images imply that a community is > unwelcoming of categories of people (minors, women...) > > 3. whether the people posting these images are aware that there are people > who feel unwelcome where these images are posted. > > 4. a question someone asked, wanting to know what the problems would be > if he wrote a card-game thing for linux and made it available for > pornographic images to be on the cards. > > 5. a number of other issues which came up a
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > But U have tons of John Malloy (dress for success) telling me how to > dress. Beyond common decency boradly considered. I have been upbraided > in tnetervies and walked out because of this. Please tell me what I am > missing, gentluyy. Why do I have to wear a monkey suit which I hate to > an interview. Why can't I just appear as I feel comfortable? Well, because one might presume (as one might from your lax attention to spelling and grammar) that you lack attention to detail. That you are unaware of how to fit in. Companies aren't like SOs: they don't do unconditional love. But, a better point: if you're really THAT uncomfortable in that kind of environment, DON'T INTERVIEW THERE. Look for a company with "business casual" dress and interview there. When I go to an interview, I find out what their usual dress is and dress one notch better. That way I look professional by their standards but I also don't look out of place. You CAN dress too formally for an interview. I have done it. We used to laugh at people who would show up for job interviews in a suit in a company where everyone wore dockers. You can also dress too casually and yet still be too stuffy for almost any company. For example, I was once flown to a place where I wore a skirt suit and a bright blouse -- but I found out when I arrived that it was strictly a grey-suit white-shirt type of place. I got the fact of suit right but missed by a mile. And yes, I still regret not getting that job. > I here this all the time, from cut my hair to wear a suit. I really > think it sucks. I see no difference at all in thew whole thing please > explain the whole thing preferably withoug a flame war over I can > "change my clothing". I am tired of being told my brightly colored > Hawaiian dinner jacket was a clown suit. Or aa brightly colored ascot. > Who cares of I color my finger nails. Why is this important? There are companies that relish the concept of difference. One of my old companies had 'hawaiian shirt day' (a different day for different groups) and each group would wear hawaiian shirts on their day. For product management, it was Thursday. It was kinda cool. That said, being TOO different can be problematic. -- _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] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > This has been a personal issue for me for ages. I tend to think that it > is turning be into an object, close to a slave to be forced to wear > cetain clothese non-volunarity. OK, trying to relate the earlier thread, THIS is what MOST women feel like when men look at nude pictures, even of other women. Or when women are treated like only their looks are important. > As far as eroticisa versus pornography well that is a difficult issue, > we that could be discuss later if anyione wants in relation to geekdom. I still think you miss the whole point. See above. -- _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] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > But U have tons of John Malloy (dress for success) telling me how to > > dress. Beyond common decency boradly considered. I have been upbraided > > in tnetervies and walked out because of this. Please tell me what I am > > missing, gentluyy. Why do I have to wear a monkey suit which I hate to > > an interview. Why can't I just appear as I feel comfortable? > > Well, because one might presume (as one might from your lax attention to > spelling and grammar) that you lack attention to detail. That you are > unaware of how to fit in. Companies aren't like SOs: they don't do > unconditional love. > > But, a better point: if you're really THAT uncomfortable in that kind of > environment, DON'T INTERVIEW THERE. Look for a company with "business > casual" dress and interview there. > > When I go to an interview, I find out what their usual dress is and dress > one notch better. That way I look professional by their standards but I > also don't look out of place. You CAN dress too formally for an interview. > I have done it. We used to laugh at people who would show up for job > interviews in a suit in a company where everyone wore dockers. That's reassuring actually... > You can also dress too casually and yet still be too stuffy for almost > any company. For example, I was once flown to a place where I wore a skirt > suit and a bright blouse -- but I found out when I arrived that it was > strictly a grey-suit white-shirt type of place. I got the fact of suit > right but missed by a mile. And yes, I still regret not getting that job. Ick. I wouldn't want to work for a company that put its programmers in suits. They're obviously missing the point. > > I here this all the time, from cut my hair to wear a suit. I really > > think it sucks. I see no difference at all in thew whole thing please > > explain the whole thing preferably withoug a flame war over I can > > "change my clothing". I am tired of being told my brightly colored > > Hawaiian dinner jacket was a clown suit. Or aa brightly colored ascot. > > Who cares of I color my finger nails. Why is this important? > > There are companies that relish the concept of difference. One of my old > companies had 'hawaiian shirt day' (a different day for different groups) > and each group would wear hawaiian shirts on their day. For product > management, it was Thursday. It was kinda cool. I think I'd hate that. A kind of nonconformity-by-the-book. > That said, being TOO different can be problematic. My problem I think. I recently got turned down for a job I really should have got (not only am I more expert than anyone they've got for the technology they're using (JSP on Unix), but it's to the extent that I know how to fix specific stuff that's wrong on their site - like the BST/GMT rollover that their sites can't cope with and mine did - their error made me miss the Walking With Dinosaurs repeat and a DS9 episode today because their TV listings were out by an hour). But I noticed going into the place, there was not one single female face in the entire IT development department and there must have been at least 50 people there. The only women I saw working in the entire organisation were the dolly-bird-PA types. Apologies for any stereotyping but I'm sure you know what I mean. People like to hire people like themselves. I'd probably be the same if I ever get into that position - geeky TSs welcome! The biggest thing I lost in transition, I think, is the assumption of competence. I got jobs *much* easier Before, when, in relation to now, I knew practically nothing. -- Rachel [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > But U have tons of John Malloy (dress for success) telling me how to > > dress. Beyond common decency boradly considered. I have been upbraided > > in tnetervies and walked out because of this. Please tell me what I am > > missing, gentluyy. Why do I have to wear a monkey suit which I hate to > > an interview. Why can't I just appear as I feel comfortable? > > Well, because one might presume (as one might from your lax attention to > spelling and grammar) that you lack attention to detail. That you are > unaware of how to fit in. Companies aren't like SOs: they don't do > unconditional love. Steve adds, he will have to use spell correctors. I am pretty burnout today. Really bad. I am sick of companies and their uptightness, I will have to pick a loose company, should I change. I am loose, came out of that enviornement. I am sick of most corporate enviornments. Companies whould offer more unconcionditrional love than they do., Else they are a waste of time. I should be careful, this issue sets me off so much. I get carefless. I am tired of it. I am tired of dress for success or, of dress a cut above. It is too depressing. I give up on all of it. Mayeb ine can find a creative environment eventually Right now I am sick of it all. > > > But, a better point: if you're really THAT uncomfortable in that kind of > environment, DON'T INTERVIEW THERE. Look for a company with "business > casual" dress and interview there. > > When I go to an interview, I find out what their usual dress is and dress > one notch better. That way I look professional by their standards but I > also don't look out of place. You CAN dress too formally for an interview. > I have done it. We used to laugh at people who would show up for job > interviews in a suit in a company where everyone wore dockers. > > You can also dress too casually and yet still be too stuffy for almost > any company. For example, I was once flown to a place where I wore a skirt > suit and a bright blouse -- but I found out when I arrived that it was > strictly a grey-suit white-shirt type of place. I got the fact of suit > right but missed by a mile. And yes, I still regret not getting that job. Why does this sound silly to me. Silly and meaningless.Maybe someonme has some sense, but this sounds like Midieieval Couurt Manners. It is is sickening and vomit inducing. > > > > I here this all the time, from cut my hair to wear a suit. I really > > think it sucks. I see no difference at all in thew whole thing please > > explain the whole thing preferably withoug a flame war over I can > > "change my clothing". I am tired of being told my brightly colored > > Hawaiian dinner jacket was a clown suit. Or aa brightly colored ascot. > > Who cares of I color my finger nails. Why is this important? > > There are companies that relish the concept of difference. One of my old > companies had 'hawaiian shirt day' (a different day for different groups) > and each group would wear hawaiian shirts on their day. For product > management, it was Thursday. It was kinda cool. > > That said, being TOO different can be problematic. Maybe I just had a bad dayBut it all sounds silly and sickening. Sounds like get drunk and go to bed and hope it will better tommorrow.Lax Grammar or Not... Steve Kudlak So rattled from tody can hardly spell his net addrss right > > > -- > _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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
BEING INTENSELY DIFFERENT IS THE THING TO DO... It really seems the only way real progress is made. Sometimes mistakes are made that way. I try underastand all the obejctification stuff sometimes I get it. Sometimss no. I will try to be kind but sometimes I miss points that others see that are bright and clear to them. Everyone is more than a body. I know this point and I try but is always felt it seems I miss it. I will try I can make no real promises it seems vague to me. All I saw is I will try. Have Fun, Sends Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Written on one of those days. It's been horrid... [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Rachel Greenham wrote: > > You can also dress too casually and yet still be too stuffy for almost > > any company. For example, I was once flown to a place where I wore a skirt > > suit and a bright blouse -- but I found out when I arrived that it was > > strictly a grey-suit white-shirt type of place. I got the fact of suit > > right but missed by a mile. And yes, I still regret not getting that job. > > Ick. I wouldn't want to work for a company that put its programmers in suits. > They're obviously missing the point. It was a consulting company whose programmers would be on-site in a similar environment. Thus, you have to fit in. I'd have done it because it was biotech and the work sounded fascinating. I wouldn't have liked the dress, but the kind of projects would have made up for it. These days, I wear jeans, sandals and a top (sometimes a t-shirt but usually more dressy). > > There are companies that relish the concept of difference. One of my old > > companies had 'hawaiian shirt day' (a different day for different groups) > > and each group would wear hawaiian shirts on their day. For product > > management, it was Thursday. It was kinda cool. > > I think I'd hate that. A kind of nonconformity-by-the-book. No, I think it was more team pride for different groups. > > That said, being TOO different can be problematic. > > My problem I think. I recently got turned down for a job I really should have > got (not only am I more expert than anyone they've got for the technology > they're using (JSP on Unix), but it's to the extent that I know how to fix > specific stuff that's wrong on their site - like the BST/GMT rollover that > their sites can't cope with and mine did - their error made me miss the > Walking With Dinosaurs repeat and a DS9 episode today because their TV > listings were out by an hour). But I noticed going into the place, there was > not one single female face in the entire IT development department and there > must have been at least 50 people there. The only women I saw working in the > entire organisation were the dolly-bird-PA types. Apologies for any > stereotyping but I'm sure you know what I mean. Yes, I do indeed know. ::sigh:: It's fairly obvious, when my new boss came in and I asked how many female candidates he'd interviewed for the positions he'd already hired for and he replied, "Oh, I don't know any of THEM." He's based in the south. I hope this isn't an indicator of Bad Things To Come. > People like to hire people like themselves. I'd probably be the same if I > ever get into that position - geeky TSs welcome! I for one wouldn't have a problem with that. > The biggest thing I lost in transition, I think, is the assumption of > competence. I got jobs *much* easier Before, when, in relation to now, I knew > practically nothing. You know, if you're not in San Francisco, perhaps you should be. There is a tolerance here for differentness that I haven't seen elsewhere. -- _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
[issues] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst Coast IS THE Best Coast.
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > You know, if you're not in San Francisco, perhaps you should be. There is > a tolerance here for differentness that I haven't seen elsewhere. > > -- > _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 I better go back to the West Coast of NOrth AMerica, high rents, housing problems and all. Maybe even Ottowa. MY curerent environment is diriving me to literal tears. Everytime I thing I got it all down, something blows up and drive me to almost literal tears. I had such a bad day today eveything has suffered. Notr the leaast being my spelling and grammar. :) I just can't ake dying INdustralia. It is cisually interesting and I'd love to docuement it. But if it gives one thoughts of suicide, well it may be time to go elsewhere. I think this applies to me and the intended receipient of this letter. Have Fun, Sends Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] Details only on requestI have gone over 24 hours from "whee! preoject one done!" to very down and feeling misunderstood and cast into a cold mean obnoxious world. All over a bunch of trivial issues that have been building up. Physical Violence, Social mistreatement, and a host of others... [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst CoastIS THE Best Coast.
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > I better go back to the West Coast of NOrth AMerica, high rents, > housing problems and all. Maybe even Ottowa. MY curerent environment is > diriving me to literal tears. Everytime I thing I got it all down, > something blows up and drive me to almost literal tears. There are a lot of places where differentness *isn't* tolerated and I suspect that if you just don't "fit in" that would be uncomfortable. Some areas of the country are more formal than others. I remember when I lived in Raleigh dressing down and going to the mall one Sunday only to see everyone in suits! I felt like I really stuck out. > I had such a bad day today eveything has suffered. Notr the leaast > being my spelling and grammar. :) Btw, it wasn't a flame, merely a comment. -- _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] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst CoastIS THE Best Coast.
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > Steve Kudlak wrote: > > There are a lot of places where differentness *isn't* tolerated and I > suspect that if you just don't "fit in" that would be uncomfortable. Some > areas of the country are more formal than others. One thing to remember is that we cannot change anyone but ourselves. Whether it's _right_ or _fair_ or _valid_ for other people to have the opinions and attitudes that they do is - well, meaningless. They have them. We can talk to them about it, we can alert them to impressions they give off, but we can't change them. And if we try, we risk being as bad as they are. Some people enjoy formality, and enjoy dressing up, and really are happy and comfortable with all the codes and mannerisms that it all entails. Dressing up to go to the races, or the opera, or to go shopping, makes them happy. Being in an environment of people who are all dressed up makes them happy. So be it. More power to them. Especially if they are content to stay in their area of the city and leave me to mine - or in the case of the USA, if they're content to stay in their cities and leave more casual people to pick their own environments. It's as unfair for you (Steve) to ask them to just bluntly accept your clothing, as it is for them to make that judgement. Both are a request for the other person to change a fundamental part of themselves. It's much, much fairer simply to shrug, name them (IN YOUR HEAD ONLY) shallow and surface-obsessed, and go find some more comfortable place to live. It also marks you as a much more mature person. :) > I remember when I lived in Raleigh dressing down and going to the mall one > Sunday only to see everyone in suits! I felt like I really stuck out. > > > I had such a bad day today eveything has suffered. Notr the leaast > > being my spelling and grammar. :) > > Btw, it wasn't a flame, merely a comment. Taking the time to improve your spelling, typing and grammar would make your letters much more readable. Again, a comment not a flame. Noone's judging you on the speed with which you process email. :) 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
[issues] Something I've observed
Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1] (who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what is basically noise. And then everything stops. This is all too similar to what happened at our second Bay Area Linuxchix meeting[2]. In the first meeting, I think we were awkward at first but had a great amount of fun. But the first meeting WAS all female. We didn't exclude men but none showed up. In the second meeting, three guys showed up and stayed for the whole meeting. A total of five other men passed through one phase of the meeting or another (literally to walk through the room). The conversation was railroaded by two men but one was orders of magnitude worse than the other. I think anyone with any sense got disgusted about the time that one guy started "deconstructing cool" -- if they hadn't already been. As a result, I brought up the issue (rather regretfully) that we exclude men altogether from the meeting as it changes the experience. I don't want to diss all the men on the list; some of the ones who've been around a while are VERY cool. I'm not going to mention names because I know I'd forget someone. :) And I'm not suggesting that we exclude them. But I think we ought to let it stop us in our tracks less. For example, I thwapped curious pretty darn hard over the last week. I got a LOT of mail privately, but there was almost none on the list about it. I think a difficult issue was raised and the group had a tendency -- which seems one among women at large -- to avoid the confrontation and thus the list. So, I'm trying to break the ice a bit. I don't know a solution, but I do recognize the symptoms. [1] Clueless male of the week. Some weeks there's more than one [2] As Nick Moffitt said, "What would a Linuxchix meeting be without leering, creepy guys?" -- _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] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst CoastIS THE Best Coast.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > > There are a lot of places where differentness *isn't* tolerated and I > > suspect that if you just don't "fit in" that would be uncomfortable. Some > > areas of the country are more formal than others. > > One thing to remember is that we cannot change anyone but ourselves. Whether > it's _right_ or _fair_ or _valid_ for other people to have the opinions and > attitudes that they do is - well, meaningless. They have them. We can talk > to them about it, we can alert them to impressions they give off, but we > can't change them. And if we try, we risk being as bad as they are. > > Some people enjoy formality, and enjoy dressing up, and really are happy > and comfortable with all the codes and mannerisms that it all entails. > Dressing up to go to the races, or the opera, or to go shopping, makes > them happy. Being in an environment of people who are all dressed up > makes them happy. > > So be it. More power to them. Especially if they are content to stay in > their area of the city and leave me to mine - or in the case of the USA, > if they're content to stay in their cities and leave more casual people > to pick their own environments. > > It's as unfair for you (Steve) to ask them to just bluntly accept your > clothing, as it is for them to make that judgement. Both are a request > for the other person to change a fundamental part of themselves. > > It's much, much fairer simply to shrug, name them (IN YOUR HEAD ONLY) > shallow and surface-obsessed, and go find some more comfortable place > to live. It also marks you as a much more mature person. :) > > > I remember when I lived in Raleigh dressing down and going to the mall one > > Sunday only to see everyone in suits! I felt like I really stuck out. > > > > > I had such a bad day today eveything has suffered. Notr the leaast > > > being my spelling and grammar. :) > > > > Btw, it wasn't a flame, merely a comment. > > Taking the time to improve your spelling, typing and grammar would > make your letters much more readable. Again, a comment not a flame. > Noone's judging you on the speed with which you process email. :) > > 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 Well let's see, my emotional,. really got the best of me, ans slooopy") grammer and speeling followed rapidly But yep you are right, it would be better to go to some place more informal. At least eventually (in a year or 2). This area is also one of easy physical pugnaciousness. Whereas here we may just flame inwords, we don't throw punches at each other. Especially over questions of which local ISP is the best. Fights break out in West Virginia may too much. This is a touchy issue, because if one woman said: "Don't do that, it might actually stop things." Or something like" Or it's not worth fight over" Instead they back out of the way and let the guys duke it out. This is sickening. It is not a place for geeks. So this may provoke my departure. If you can't change people you can just move. I did once. I should probably do so again. Only difference I think is that it IS FAIR FOR ME TO ASK THEM TO ACCEPT MY CLOTHING. I may joke about "suits" but they are no less a human being. I only ask the same. To me it seems they are glorifying stupidity. But the convenient way is to remove myself from it and do to some place better. It is the never teach a pig to sing thing... SO I fear I will have to make my plans accordingly unless I am granted the grace of the accepted eccentric. SO eventually it maybe just go elsewhere to more tolerant region. As I am pretty burnt out. ANd as my friendly MD's nurse says: "If you can't adapt in 3 years it probably isn't going to happen. I will shrug shoulders but it if is a business situation AU will create a protest to protect people from further abuse. Have Fun, Sends Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
Steve Kudlak wrote: > Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > > > > > But U have tons of John Malloy (dress for success) telling me how to > > > dress. Beyond common decency boradly considered. I have been upbraided > > > in tnetervies and walked out because of this. Please tell me what I am > > > missing, gentluyy. Why do I have to wear a monkey suit which I hate to > > > an interview. Why can't I just appear as I feel comfortable? Well if one is sick of corpoare america. What other choice is there? I am getting to take that tack. I am pretty tired of it. I would prefer creative without it. But if it musgt be there, there really shouldn't be any dress codes. I think Santa Cruz, Califronia was right in trying to outlaw them. They are an insult to human dignity. I if more people tp;d corporate america they were being oprsssive they might listen. To me being asked to wear such vlothing is only a little less insulting than asking a female secreatry something that showed off her chlevage to attract customers. Yep I feel stongluy about this. Have FUn, Sends Steve... Geeeks should be able to weat whatever they want within broad limits. Drerss Dress codes are work of the devil and should be banned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst CoastISTHE Best Coast.
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: > Well let's see, my emotional,. really got the best of me, Steve, this list isn't about YOUR alienation, no matter how real it may be. It's about OUR alienation. -- _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] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote: ::plonk:: Next? -- _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] Something I've observed
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1] > (who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what > is basically noise. And then everything stops. I absolutely agree with your observation. Notice how we never got anything really resolved about the themes.org issue? The conversation was an excellent mix of diverse opinions, ranging from trying to define exactly what was threatened or discomfiting (or not) about adult pictures to how to deal with the problem. Then it stopped, mostly because we had one audience member whose liberal use of the term PC and ubiquitous posting made it impossible to talk to anyone but him! (Or about anything but him). He seems to have disappeared, but now so has the thread. On top of that, I feel like I expended so much energy argueing with him that I don't have any left over to restart it. > > In the second meeting, three guys showed up and stayed for the whole > meeting. A total of five other men passed through one phase of the meeting > or another (literally to walk through the room). Did they actually come to just look at the group? Or were they legitimate passers-by? >The conversation was > railroaded by two men but one was orders of magnitude worse than the > other. I think anyone with any sense got disgusted about the time that one > guy started "deconstructing cool" -- if they hadn't already been. > > As a result, I brought up the issue (rather regretfully) that we exclude > men altogether from the meeting as it changes the experience. > It does. However, this is something I'd like to try and understand. Is it just the fact that they're men? Or is it the fact that they're men conscious of being part of something with a focus on women? I don't think the first one is correct. With regards to the second, I see two different reactions: 1) overpowering the conversation, in the kinds of ways Deirdre has described; or, 2) joining the discussion in a careful, thoughtful manner, as in the cool ones Deirdre mentions in the next paragraph. Both types seem to be aware that they are treading in territory where they are not on center stage. What is it that makes one accept that and function respectfully and constructively, and the other trample over everything in sight to take back the center? > I don't want to diss all the men on the list; some of the ones who've > been around a while are VERY cool. I'm not going to mention names because > I know I'd forget someone. :) I'm glad you put this here. I definitely have been very impressed with the tenor of most male contributions to this list. > > And I'm not suggesting that we exclude them. But I think we ought to let > it stop us in our tracks less. For example, I thwapped curious pretty darn > hard over the last week. I got a LOT of mail privately, but there was > almost none on the list about it. I think a difficult issue was raised and > the group had a tendency -- which seems one among women at large -- to > avoid the confrontation and thus the list. Ah yes. Curious. Well, in my view, his first post introduced him as a friend of Vinnie's (which lended him credence in my eyes), and then went on to give us a sort of mini-lecture on how this list conducts it's conversations, and why we should conduct them differently. I sort of wondered at that, and didn't really agree, but thought it was a valid point to make. Then came the adult linux thing, and suddenly I thought, 'Oh, *I* see.' I felt that one was a calculated prelude to the other. And I found I had nothing to say. I was disgusted, but I couldn't really get it out onto the screen. I don't want to help him. He is free to do whatever he wants, but why is he asking me to help him do it so it won't offend women in the community? I mean, what is he after? Encouragement? _Cat /././././././././././././././././././ The plural of anecdote is not data. \.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Something I've observed
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Cat wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1] > > (who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what > > is basically noise. And then everything stops. > > I absolutely agree with your observation. Notice how we never got > anything really resolved about the themes.org issue? The conversation was > an excellent mix of diverse opinions, ranging from trying to define > exactly what was threatened or discomfiting (or not) about adult pictures > to how to deal with the problem. Right. > Then it stopped, mostly because we had one audience member whose liberal > use of the term PC and ubiquitous posting made it impossible to talk to > anyone but him! (Or about anything but him). He seems to have > disappeared, but now so has the thread. On top of that, I feel like I > expended so much energy argueing with him that I don't have any left > over to restart it. Right. What I'm saying is that unless we recognize that this will happen over and over and over and that we need a better sense of deja vu, we'll have other discussions sidetracked and killed. > > In the second meeting, three guys showed up and stayed for the whole > > meeting. A total of five other men passed through one phase of the meeting > > or another (literally to walk through the room). > > Did they actually come to just look at the group? Or were they legitimate > passers-by? Two of them needed something from one of the women at the meeting. Two of them lived there. One had come early to unlock the door for the meeting. > > As a result, I brought up the issue (rather regretfully) that we exclude > > men altogether from the meeting as it changes the experience. > > It does. However, this is something I'd like to try and understand. Is > it just the fact that they're men? Or is it the fact that they're men > conscious of being part of something with a focus on women? I'm not quite sure. Honestly, I think in part there was the unstated "WHY are you here?" question. The first meeting was extra-cool because NONE of us had EVER been in such a high concentration of women before. We hashed out some of the issues on our own group list, see: http://www.baylinuxchix.org/pipermail/baylinuxchix/ But I think it was more the railroading, the getting sidetracked by comments from men. I think that is a problem of female acculturation that I really hadn't even noticed before. There was also a depth-of-conversation problem: the first meeting was much deeper than the second: in the first we discussed salaries, specific instances of marginalization. All that was glossed over the second meeting with men present. > I don't think the first one is correct. With regards to the > second, I see two different reactions: > > 1) overpowering the conversation, in the kinds of ways Deirdre has > described; or, > 2) joining the discussion in a careful, thoughtful manner, as in the cool > ones Deirdre mentions in the next paragraph. > > Both types seem to be aware that they are treading in territory where they > are not on center stage. What is it that makes one accept that and > function respectfully and constructively, and the other trample over > everything in sight to take back the center? I don't know. > > I don't want to diss all the men on the list; some of the ones who've > > been around a while are VERY cool. I'm not going to mention names because > > I know I'd forget someone. :) > > I'm glad you put this here. I definitely have been very impressed with > the tenor of most male contributions to this list. Agreed. > Ah yes. Curious. Well, in my view, his first post introduced him as a > friend of Vinnie's (which lended him credence in my eyes), and then went > on to give us a sort of mini-lecture on how this list conducts it's > conversations, and why we should conduct them differently. I sort of > wondered at that, and didn't really agree, but thought it was a valid > point to make. Then came the adult linux thing, and suddenly I thought, > 'Oh, *I* see.' I felt that one was a calculated prelude to the other. I'm not sure if it was that calculated other than "I need to introduce myself first." ::shrug:: > And I found I had nothing to say. I was disgusted, but I couldn't really > get it out onto the screen. I don't want to help him. He is free to do > whatever he wants, but why is he asking me to help him do it so it won't > offend women in the community? I mean, what is he after? Encouragement? Chris, I must admit, is also a friend of mine. I wouldn't have suggested he come here because I know him well enough to know the outcome. I don't know why he asked and it still boggles my mind that he thought we would be a sympathetic audience for that sort of question. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Dig
Re: [issues] Re: [issues What is ismissing...what am I missing...
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:19:04 -0500, Steve Kudlak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Steve adds, he will have to use spell correctors. I am pretty burnout >today. Really bad. I am sick of companies and their uptightness, I >will have to pick a loose company, should I change. I am loose, came >out of that enviornement. I am sick of most corporate >enviornments. Companies whould offer more unconcionditrional love >than they do., Else they are a waste of time. Um, isn't the function of a company to make money as efficiently as possible? If you want love, join a commune, or a family. As far as dress codes go, I don't want to hear it. Programmers have it easy compared to lawyers. It's enough for a male programmer to wear a tie to an interview. Our Career Services Office gives us a nice two-page brochure on how to dress for an interview, including things like what colors to prefer and to avoid, how much jewelry is appropriate, and so on. Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst CoastIS THE Best Coast.
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:29:17 -0800 (PST), Deirdre Saoirse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Steve, this list isn't about YOUR alienation, no matter how real it >may be. >It's about OUR alienation. Well, to an extent he's experiencing a lesser alienation female geeks sometimes feel: alienation from more "traditional" female groups. Now, most of us don't give a damn about those groups, but there are some who might Kelly (who understands alienation better than anyone has any right to...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Something I've observed
> > point to make. Then came the adult linux thing, and suddenly I thought, > > 'Oh, *I* see.' I felt that one was a calculated prelude to the other. > > I'm not sure if it was that calculated other than "I need to introduce > myself first." ::shrug:: (to Deirdre) Given your insight on the matter, I will defer to your judgement here. (To curious) Sorry, I think I over-interpreted your introductory statement. > > And I found I had nothing to say. I was disgusted, but I couldn't really > > get it out onto the screen. I don't want to help him. He is free to do > > whatever he wants, but why is he asking me to help him do it so it won't > > offend women in the community? I mean, what is he after? Encouragement? > > Chris, I must admit, is also a friend of mine. I wouldn't have > suggested he come here because I know him well enough to know the outcome. > I don't know why he asked and it still boggles my mind that he thought we > would be a sympathetic audience for that sort of question. Yes, that was definitely my mind-boggle for the week! _Cat /././././././././././././././././././ The plural of anecdote is not data. \.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc)
> Kelly (who understands alienation better than anyone has any right > to...) There was a great documentary on the TV/TS lifestyle on the Discovery channel (it just ended and I am sure it will be repeated). An interesting experience was brought up at the end: a male to female post-op was working as a computer programmer. After the operation, her salary decreased by $2000. My mouth definitely dropped open! I'm not sure when the documentary was made, maybe I'll look into it on the Discovery channel website. -- 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] Places, issues and all the rest...Maybe the Wst CoastISTHE Best Coast.
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:29:17 -0800 (PST), Deirdre Saoirse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >Steve, this list isn't about YOUR alienation, no matter how real it > >may be. > > >It's about OUR alienation. > > Well, to an extent he's experiencing a lesser alienation female geeks > sometimes feel: alienation from more "traditional" female groups. I'm aware of this. But Steve needs to realize that he is free to pursue other resources. He is free to create a list of "men who are alienated from society at large" list if he wishes (or any other kind of list). But this list is about the alienation specific to female linux users. :) > Now, most of us don't give a damn about those groups, but there are > some who might I don't personally. > Kelly (who understands alienation better than anyone has any right > to...) I remember the alienation I felt as a new widow. Everyone wanted to be "sensitive" and so many people avoided me (consciously or otherwise). I felt alienated even from grief support groups because I had mixed feelings about my recently-deceased husband (that's not allowed in most support groups). Anyhow, I remember then that you (and a few of my other friends) were the ones who DID listen. No "group" was there 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] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc)
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Nicole Zimmerman wrote: > There was a great documentary on the TV/TS lifestyle on the Discovery > channel (it just ended and I am sure it will be repeated). I'm going to have to make a point of watching it. > An interesting experience was brought up at the end: a male to female > post-op was working as a computer programmer. After the operation, her > salary decreased by $2000. My mouth definitely dropped open! That is EXTREMELY disturbing. -- _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] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc)
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:12:31 -0800 (PST), Deirdre Saoirse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>An interesting experience was brought up at the end: a male to >>female post-op was working as a computer programmer. After the >>operation, her salary decreased by $2000. My mouth definitely >>dropped open! >That is EXTREMELY disturbing. It would interesting to argue that that was illegal sex discrimination. Of course, the employer could come back that, no, it was legal transsexual discrimination, but if so why did the employer wait until after surgery (which is _long_ after the employer would know that the employee was TS)? I'd also want to know whether the employer was subject to FMLA. Kelly (no, really, I'm not a lawyer!) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc)
> > There was a great documentary on the TV/TS lifestyle on the Discovery > > channel (it just ended and I am sure it will be repeated). > > I'm going to have to make a point of watching it. According to my http://www.tvguide.com/listings it will be repeated tonight at 2:00 AM PST. It is called "What sex am I?". The listings specific for the discovery channel say "the discovery channel west", so I'm assuming it would be the same for anywhere on the west coast. I was trying to find more information on the discovery channel, but then I saw their link for a show on house cats, which lead to the kitten cam... and I was lost in "aww look at the cute kitty!!" land. :o) And also in other discovery.com news, "The difference between man and woman is ancient" http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/brief1.html Couldn't find anything on the show, though. -nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc)
I love it when I send mail to myself ;o) Original Message From: Nicole Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Penguin Chaos To: Nicole Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [issues] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc) > Couldn't find anything on the show, though. Figures that I'd find it as soon as I sent out that last message! http://www.discovery.com/sched/domestic/episode/39/30142013.html Discovery Sunday What Sex Am I? Most people don't question their sexual identity: they're either male or female. But for transsexuals and transvestites, that distinction is not so simple. In this film they get to tell their own stories. Air Time(s) Eastern/Pacific Time: DSC - 31 Oct 1999 - 10:00 PM DSC - 31 Oct 1999 - 02:00 AM --- I disagree. I think most people DO question their sexual "identity", or at least their sexuality with respect to what they believe they "should" be (i.e. macho vs. feminine). I also believe that sexuality is not black and white, but shades of grey, just as most everything in life is. Most people, however, are afraid to admit that they may not be 100% male/female in fear of who knows what -- religion? Status quo? Peer pressure? Many people seem to hide behind their sexuality if they are "lacking" in other areas or are too caught up in it. I find that "hanging out" with the GLBT community (for the most part) is very useful in being comfortable with your sexuality, and all shades between male heterosexual and female heterosexual. The "for the most part" only comes when dealing with something of a reverse-heterosexual standard (GLBT people can only be with other GLBT people because others just aren't "good enough"). -nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc)
Sorry if this gets sent twice. Netscape crashed just as I hit "send". Originally, I accidentally sent the message to myself ;o) Original Message Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:52:08 -0800 From: Nicole Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Penguin Chaos To: Nicole Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [issues] alienation (was: Places, issues, etc) > Couldn't find anything on the show, though. Figures that I'd find it as soon as I sent out that last message! http://www.discovery.com/sched/domestic/episode/39/30142013.html Discovery Sunday What Sex Am I? Most people don't question their sexual identity: they're either male or female. But for transsexuals and transvestites, that distinction is not so simple. In this film they get to tell their own stories. Air Time(s) Eastern/Pacific Time: DSC - 31 Oct 1999 - 10:00 PM DSC - 31 Oct 1999 - 02:00 AM --- I disagree. I think most people DO question their sexual "identity", or at least their sexuality with respect to what they believe they "should" be (i.e. macho vs. feminine). I also believe that sexuality is not black and white, but shades of grey, just as most everything in life is. Most people, however, are afraid to admit that they may not be 100% male/female in fear of who knows what -- religion? Status quo? Peer pressure? Many people seem to hide behind their sexuality if they are "lacking" in other areas or are too caught up in it. I find that "hanging out" with the GLBT community (for the most part) is very useful in being comfortable with your sexuality, and all shades between male heterosexual and female heterosexual. The "for the most part" only comes when dealing with something of a reverse-heterosexual standard (GLBT people can only be with other GLBT people because others just aren't "good enough"). -nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
