Re: [issues] "Female Hackers Battle Sexism [...]"
Alice wrote: > ...(and at that age we all know what that usually means)... Actually, we--being male in this instance--don't. > The second problem is an immediate issue of geek girls feeling alone and > being abandoned. How so? > Whatever we hear about geeks being antisocial introverts, > it simply isn't true. >From my experience, I would tend to agree with this. However, what leads you to say >this? > As esr wrote in the cathedral and the bazaar a lot > of open source software development can be traced to gaining peer approval > (as well as the scratch an itch stuff). The effect our peers have on > shaping us is both well researched and depressingly strong. On an > individual level the idea that those poor lasses are still suffering as I > think many of us did/still do is appauling. And this is even forgetting > the wider issues of a society losing half of its potential. I wonder if Raymond's analysis isn't too broad, and so, meaningless. I haven't read CAB in its entirety, so I'll get back to you before I say more. abs -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] At what point is it sexism...
"Jenn V." wrote: > 2. Power. > If one party has power over the other - financial, managerial, > uni-results, force of personality - then it becomes terribly, > terribly awkward for the one without power. What do you mean by "force of personality". This sounds terribly general. We're all personally distinct, some people being more forceful than others in some things. And what is "uni-results"? > (Exception: some people like to play this dynamic as a game. > Provided they both /choose/ to do it, freely, it's fun.) I suppose it /could/ be fun--both parties consenting. Have you tried? > Hm. I think the trick to not being perceived as sexist is to > get to know the person /as a person/, before flirting with them. > Prove to them that you /do/ believe they know the difference between > cat5 and 10baseT. Then flirt while handing them screws and letting > them install your new ethernet card. /I'd/ like to know the difference between cat5 and 10baseT (while you're on the subject). This isn't an "issue", so, please respond personally. Thanks. abs -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] Anyone know any more about this study?
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > The fact is that women PENALIZE THEMSELVES and that it is, to a large > degree, a choice. The context of your statement is subtle. Would you please expand on this? Thanks -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] Anyone know any more about this study?
Alice wrote: > ...(a wonderful man who berated me > for my humility during a project early in my career, and sat me down for a > couple of hours during a very hectic and late stage in the release > schedule because I had apologised for failing. He recognised that I felt > out of my depth and told me why they had hired me, and lots of hard to > describe things about self development and pushing myself forward, and > being proactive etc. Stuff that helps me still now.)... I would be interested to hear more of this experience. If you wouldn't mind. abs -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] Anyone know any more about this study?
[ Annette, You received this post and not the list. Sorry. My fault. abs ] Annette Stroud wrote: > > > The fact is that women PENALIZE THEMSELVES and that it is, to a large > > > degree, a choice. > > > > The context of your statement is subtle. Would you please expand on this? > > By marrying and having children, women voluntarily eschew > economic rewards, even though no such sacrifice is called for on > the part of men for making the same decisions. > > Pretty bloody clear we are doing it to ourselves. > > Annette Hmmm. This sounds like a pointer to a problem with the institution of marriage. Now THAT is an interesting subject. All cultures through time have [had] some ceremony by which two individuals are bonded to each other. Do you think humanity's 'global' culture (did I say global?) is growing away from single partner marriages? In the United States I think marriage is still seen as a hierarchical structure. The keyword is, of course, hierarchy. Must such an institution, if it exists, be hierarchical? There are other social and economic factors--of which I'm not well versed--that would enforce this hierarchy, at leas in the United States. What I'm getting at is that there is little reason to load balance the rearing of children (it seems to me). Unless, the parents are agreeing to share and meter the results and adjust accordingly. I know there are many families that do this. The primary reason this occurs, I /think/, is because two people agree to it. There is little support from most work environments for fathers to be fathers. Working mothers, likewise. This is the first time I've really thought about this, so please be gentle when correcting facts and recognizing opinion. abs -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] RE: issues digest, Vol 1 #53 - 4 msgs
"Rockwell, Christi" wrote: > I've found in certain forums it's helpful to have ambiguous names. People > tend to make assumptions about your background or beliefs based on gender. > I remember one person on alt.abortion trying desperately to figure out > whether I was male or female. > > My kids both have gender neutral names. It was much easier to think of one > name than to have to come up with different names depending on if it was a > boy or girl. :-) Don't you think gender-neutral naming is a patch/bandaid on the greater issue of stereotype and bias? This is not a critisism. I'm making an observation. abs ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] obscuring gender
Jennifer Steinbachs wrote: > In publishing my (few) scientific articles, I have often > wondered if I should publish under initials or under my > full name. There are a number of studies (I don't have > the refs. off the top of my head) demonstrating that > papers with obvious female names are less cited that > those with obvious male names. This is an important > issue because, here in the US anyway, university faculty > tenure is often linked to the number of citations one > receives. > > On the other hand, does one really want to hide behind > initials? And then, sooner or later, people will know > the name that goes with those initials... > > Cheers, > -jennifer Your point is taken, Jen. However, at what point is this judgement cycle broken? My point is that while reality is as it is what are we doing or going to do to move ourselves as a society [and world?] toward a more gentle nature? The reason I'm asking this is because this cycle does not strike me as sustainable. We as humans have judged each other for millennia. No doubt this will continue. However, while some bring up the issue of Nature-vs-Nurture, survival of the fittest, and 'our' animal instinct, I feel quite strongly that, inevitably, if we wish, the gray matter between our ears also provides us the means to transcend ourselves. This is my most important point: we can trancend ourself if we wish [with difficultly for most--I have myself in mind]. -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] Query: Linux Certification
"Wendy J Preuss, CPC" wrote: > I have an oppty in the Chicago area that has you put $2500 up front for > training, and you receive a letter of employment guarantee, once you get > your certification, and after a year of employment your money is refunded. > What does anyone think of this? What is meant by "employment guarantee"? -- Alexander Sendzimir "You're a person, not a user." Digitally Inclined [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 203 263 7405 | Woodbury, CT 06798-3017 ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
