Re: [issues] women in computing article
Beverly Guillermo wrote: > > Computer Science, in my point of view, is supposed to be theoretical > aspects of computing. All practical applications is left to the IS majors > and everyone else. =) > > I actually like looking at the theories. I've got ideas on how to improve > things that aren't in development yet. not to open up another can of worms, but what would you consider developing a new OS to be -- MIS or CS? I'm not talking re-engineering the Unix kernel (), I mean designing a new OS architechture from scratch -- sort of like the folks at Bell tried to do with Plan 9. I've always thought some of the problems with CS was theory-without-application. Granted, I've no interested in writing YADB (Yet Another Database), but at some point CS people should be putting "pen to paper", so to speak. Consider that the two greatest contributors to the field of computing as a whole (in my not so humble opinion) were bastions of industry -- Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. How theoretical do you mean? IMHO, if you don't touch on practical issues at least 50% of the time, what you're doing isn't CS, it's math (eg: Edsger Djikstra. grr.) Agree totally on the theory stuff, but it's interesting to see how different people define "Computer Science" --- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dyn.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] That clothes thread...
Caitlyn Máire Martin wrote: > > Hi, everyone, > > I had to tear into our e-mail server today. It's at the top of the rack, > so I had to do it up on a ladder. (Yes, I'm short.) I'm sure glad I am > wearing jeans, and not a skirt or a dress. Could you imagine being up on a > ladder in a skirt reaching into the server chassis when a guy walks in the > server room? that would suck royally. okay, as "work clothing commentary" seems popular, i'll add in an amused $0.02, since it seems vaguely corrolary: today, i wore a pair of tight black leather pants, a really tight t-shirt, a pair of combat boots, black motorcycle jacket and a bondage collar into work. no one particularly noticed (except for the occasional "nice pants" comments). now, if only Hot Topic made leather pants with pockets that wouldn't kill the line. (i only wore the jacket so i'd have somewhere to stick my wallet, palm pilot, knife, cell phone, etc, etc). --- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dyn.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] "Female Hackers Battle Sexism [...]"
thomas sjogren wrote: > > "Facing a Man's World - Female Hackers Battle Sexism to Get Ahead" > > The experience of women at the entry levels of the hacking scene, mostly in online >chat groups, is one of relentless sexual harassment. It is a hard battle for women to >be respected in a culture dominated by teenage boys [...] > the teenage boys *aren't hackers*. they're crackers. they're not even *good* crackers. (good == proficient/talented). but this is a silly article; it's whining about sexism in an *illegal subculture*. in the *legitimate* subculture (ie, security consulting), there is certainly some people who are sexist, but overall, it's a *real field* dominated by *adults*. bleah. silly, silly, *silly* article. who *cares* if a bunch of criminals and criminal-wannabes are sexist? ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] "Female Hackers Battle Sexism [...]"
"Fan, Laurel" wrote: > > Susannah Rosenberg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > bleah. silly, silly, *silly* article. who *cares* if a bunch of > > criminals and criminal-wannabes are sexist? > > This is just one instance in the larger issue of widespread > misogynistic behavior in the criminal community. > > One of the reasons that women still make only 73 cents for > every dollar a man earns is that they are extremely poorly > represented in the criminal professions. erm, you know, i have to assume that those statistics are generated from *income tax returns*. it's safe to assume that criminals don't return taxes, or if they do, they're *really* laundered. > This serves doubly to increase the oppression of women; > not only do women make less money, but it is widely accepted > that the true powers in any society are those who circumvent > that society's laws. er... since when? i mean, what statistics are you basing this on? what numbers? it seems like you just pulled that statement out of nowhere. just because you say something is "widely accepted" doesn't mean it's true. people in illegal professions tend to live short, violent lives, are often *very very very* poor, and very seldom enjoy the benefits that legitimate members of society do (such as, say, healthcare, and the fact that they often have to go to jail). you are perhaps confusing *people who circumvent laws*, ie, corporations and very, very rich people, with professional criminals. -- w: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Please do not feed the dysfunctional geek." ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] "Female Hackers Battle Sexism [...]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:56:39 +0100 (GMT), Alice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >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). > > I don't buy esr's argument here. He's assuming that he's "typical" > when in fact he's not. > > Of course, esr is also a sexist pig, so I don't know if we really want > him as a "role model" anyway. um, pardon me, but do you speak from personal experience? (ie, have you met or do you know esr personally?) speaking as someone who's hung out with him at conventions (no, not /THAT/ kind of conventions... sci-fi conventions!) and who knows his extremely kickass wife, he really doesn't seem /at all/ sexist to me, nor have i ever read anything in his writing that's particularly sexist. -- w: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Please do not feed the dysfunctional geek." ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] "Female Hackers Battle Sexism [...]"
Snarfblat wrote: > > There was an interesting discussion brought up in this thread > that made me wonder... > > At what point is flirting / sexual attraction / et all perceived > as sexism? What factors indicate whether it is more towards a > sexist annoyance, or an uninvited advance... I perceive it as sexist when: - I've already said "I'm not interested/Fuck off" *and* - The offending party *continues* to do it, and uses excuses such as: - you're obviously looking for it (by wearing a dress, makeup, whatever) - starts insulting me in a sexist way (ie, "you must be a lesbian" -- really more homophobic, but also sexist in it's assumption *every* woman who's not gay *must* want "a man") most of the time, i just write it off as Skanky Ho People and leave it at that. no sexism, just bad taste. > Is the fact that social advances are traditionally (not sure how > equal it is today, definately a lot more balanced) a male > activity contribute to any perceived sexism? heh. this is such a myth. :) in my experience, women make just as many sexual advances as men. women just tend to make them in different ways. > I guess the root of it is how you feel your being perceived, > either as a peice of meat, or genuinely interesting, and what > decides this? you know, on the piece of meat issue, i've finally decided it's not really sexism. it's really more just resounding shallowness, at least in american culture. most of the guys i know of who treat women as sex objects really aren't the type to have deep, meaningful emotional and intellectual relationships with their *male* friends, either. they're usually just stupid and shallow. now, granted, i think there is more of a tendency towards real deep emotional bonding with men and disregard of women in european and asian and middle eastern cultures, but over here if someone is just interested in me because i have large breasts they're usually just boring fuckheads. -- w: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Please do not feed the dysfunctional geek." ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] Re: Re: Does Jane Compute
noproblem wrote: i agree that geekiness is becoming attractive. however, it's becoming attractive because of _money_. and in a lot of cases, while (hetero) women want a man who can support and provide for them... men still want to be "the head of the household". the economic attraction isn't as strong for men, because society still expects them to provide, and looks down on them if they don't. so the perception i've seen is that _male_ geeks are desirable, while female geeks are often seen as... scary. not female enough; in as much as geekiness now equates to positive 'masculine' virtues, it's respected. in as much as geekiness does _not_ equate to traditional 'feminine' values, it's undervalued. i've noticed a weird trend in all this geek attractiveness stuff: young, geeky guys marrying older, less geeky women. any thoughts? --- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] Re: Re: Does Jane Compute
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Susannah Rosenberg wrote: > > > i agree that geekiness is becoming attractive. however, it's > > becoming attractive because of _money_. > > > > and in a lot of cases, while (hetero) women want a man who can support > > and provide for them... men still want to be "the head of the > > household". > > In a lot of cases, couples with a geek woman find that the woman is the > primary breadwinner. Like mine. yup. seen a lot of this as well. :) however, i've also seen it become an issue, even in geek households with strong relationships -- sometimes, the social conditioning is just hard to break. > > the economic attraction isn't as strong for men, because society still > > expects them to provide, and looks down on them if they don't. so the > > perception i've seen is that _male_ geeks are desirable, while female > > geeks are often seen as... scary. not female enough; in as much > > as geekiness now equates to positive 'masculine' virtues, it's > > respected. in as much as geekiness does _not_ equate to traditional > > 'feminine' values, it's undervalued. > > I disagree. I know of no female geeks not in relationships (except for > some of my gay female friends). lucky friends. :) i know quite a lot of geeks, male /and/ female, not in relationships, but attached-males far outnumber attached females. for what's it worth, the geek guys are a /lot/ more likely to have NON geek girlfriends than the female geeks. even counting the lesbian and bi-sexual girl geeks, i've noticed. i'm convinced there's something in that, even if it's just that most women i know seem more concerned with acceptance than the guys (unfortunately). -- --- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] My bad writing in "Re: Does Jane Compute"
curious wrote: > > > Doug Vogt wrote: > > > > > > You can certainly be irritated by the attention that Playboy's Playmate > > > of the Month steals. > > > > This line clarified something I specifically wanted to refute. > > > > There /appears/ to be an underlying theme in your argument that > > 'women want to be desirable to men'. It comes across as a subtext, > > and .. well. If this was intended, this sort of assumption is actually > > part of the problem. IMO. > > To some degree men and women try to make themselves "desirable" to the > gender they are intrested in... Other then the statement being hetrosexist > what is wrong with this assumption? Because it's incorrect, and traditionally the burden of 'desireability' is on females. Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're sexually interested in; at least, not consciously. --- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dyn.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] My bad writing in "Re: Does Jane Compute"
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > Because it's incorrect, and traditionally the burden of 'desireability' > > is on females. > > > > Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're > > sexually interested in; at least, not consciously. > > Some of us have made a deliberate point of being OUTSIDE as much of the > norms as possible *because* we didn't like the sexist attention. Thus, I > don't even think the statement that we optimize for attractiveness is > true. (Unless, of course, you consider that I was deliberately trying to > alienate the one group) hrm. that would depend on whether or not optimizing for "unattractiveness" counts. (i know of someone who apparently does this -- hi amanda!). personally, it's rather pathetic that women even have to *bother* to do this, but i know quite a few who deliberately "dress down" to avoid male attention to varying degrees. i did it for a /long/ period during adolescence, and i've finally gotten to the point where i just dress to find /myself/ attractive -- not what will attract me attention/sex/men/women, but stuff in which /i/ feel both attractive and comfortable, up to and including muddy jeans. :) anyone else have a similar philosophy? doubt that many female geeks are the type to "present" for other people. --- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dyn.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] My bad writing in "Re: Does Jane Compute"
quoting srl: > > *nod* i've found that being "one of the guys"--- wearing jeans or khakis, > > sport shirts (cotton, non-flannel), and boots--- gets me places with > > technical people that I wouldn't get if i dressed more "feminine". > > I've discussed this with my butch acquaintances and they've found the same > > thing. > > > > For some reason, there's a prevailing assumption that feminine = > > non-technical. Either that, or male geeks get along better with people > > like them i think it's the fact that 'feminine' dressing is so much more... involved? superficial? than 'male' dressing. most of the geeks i know, male and female, tend to dress for comfort and practicality first, everything else second. it's part of the hold 'body doesn't matter, mind does'. while i like to dress up for /myself/ at times (thigh-high lace up black pvc boots, here i come!), it's only on special occasions that i go 'girly' -- because if i wore all my weird pvc/leather/sparkly/tight/form-fitting club-going clothing at work, where i basically sit in front of a crt all day, i'd... well, get really sweaty and look stupid. in a technical job (or situation such as staying up all night coding in your garage), feminine clothing just really isn't suited. just /try/ putting together a box while wearing panty-hose, i dare ya. it's not the /gender/ of the clothing, imho, so much as the impracticality of said clothing. that said, there's about one woman in my department who does dress both fairly stylishly and femininely (if typically in either pants or very long skirts) and as far as i can tell she's basically treated like everyone else, because she's competant and gets her job done (in addition to being quite beautiful). quoting curious: > I wonder how much of this comes from the "corporate atmosphere" ie. in > dance groups men who are more "feminine" seem to be more respected then > those that are not... perhaps the environment (perhaps shapped by xyz male > syndrom) leads to an expectation of a certian dress for a "techie" to rehash: techie dress == for convenience. i > Certain types of clothing bother other people depending on the > environment.. for instance... wearing jeans and t-shirt to a place where > suit and tie are expected.. is just odd.. and leads to less respect in > cases... can lead to get you sent back home, in a lot of cases. > For those of you who work for companies with more then one "techie" > female.. do females also hold similar bias to females who dress "feminine" nope. most of the women here dress in jeans and t-shirt just like the guys -- but then, all of our /manangers/ dress that way, too. the only people i've ever seen in suits'n'ties are either: - sales people - new folks here on an interview or - security guards. but aside from that little disclaimer -- the only bias i could see any of my coworkers having is if someone's fashion choices somehow affected their /job/. after all, no one seems to care about race (fairly multicultural office), gender (lots and lots of women, including my boss), sexual orientation (at least one person out as gay, possibly more including myself depending on how people view the pride sticker on my car), and religion (quick example: we have a nice muslim man working for an equally nice very very pagan woman. peacefully). (okay -- amanda -- am i on crack here? is this your perception, too?) the possibility of my company being some sort of nirvana aside, i really think what most techie people seem to go on at bottom line is competance. they only discriminate if something interferes with that. -- Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dyn.dhs.org ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
Re: [issues] My bad writing in "Re: Does Jane Compute"
Doug Vogt wrote: > > My fear is that temporal myopia (the propensity not to see trends from > the past to extrapolate into the future) would combine with > intimidations now. I think that women who are competent with computers > perceive disdain from others and also see in others the high levels of > esteem given to women primarily on the basis of physical attributes. ehhh... never really perceived disdain from anyone. for how i looked, sometimes, for my attitude often, for my political beliefs, sex life, religious beliefs, tastes in editors, yeah. for being good at computers? not really. most people are just impressed, occasionally weirded out (i do tend to find coding fun and have left my house in the middle of the night to drive to work so i could code on a project that had been bugging me in a decent environment... er, hi amanda. :). but aside from the "wow, you're REALLY otaku about this!" reaction (which i get from GEEKS, even), i don't think there's disdain for being good with computers THEMSELVES. it's the fact that to BECOME competant you often have to spend lots of time not having a social life, and often neglecting such things as friends, clothes, makeup, proms, classes... er... anyway, just generally being somewhat isolated and obsessive, which is not as acceptable for girls as it is for guys. but that's not disdain for being competant, itself, imho. > The point of rage touches on simple issues of what a > formally educated person might call "Feminist Ethics 101". The > "perfect body" women get all the glory, but they do not > necessarily manifest the highest, contemporarily considered virtues that > should merit admiration. Thus, I think that the animosity among normal > southern California women against the "perfect body" southern > California women is jealousy but not envy. don't think that's jealousy: that's good, healthy hatred and anger. 'perfect body' females, at least the ones who have to put EFFORT into it, are almost all vapid, immature, shallow and selfish people. > I hope not to dive too deeply into controversy here, but I think I have > identified an element of sentiment that would evoke a nod of agreement > from many readers. Thus, since subsequent arguments are about the > facts of existent opinions, we can carry on the discussion as if we are > discussing facts simply because the logic is conditioned on the > pervasive FACT of those opinions' presence in the sentiment of a normal > female mind. 'normal female mind'? these things EXIST? heh. look, not to flame you, but there's no such thing as a female mind, damnit. (a female BRAIN, yes. mind, no). > > The connotation between the desireable woman and the technologically > competent woman will probably pervade propaganda in the future. psuedo-competant woman. or, well: it's becoming easier and easier to be "technologically competant" these days, with less time and dedication required, as the ease-of-use curve starts to take off. i think the true hackers/code geeks/otaku/whatever of /either/ gender will still be 'undesireable' or 'nerdy' or 'antisocial' or what have you; it's just a matter of /what/ we consider to be 'competant'. sure, a woman with an mcse carrying a laptop (for example) might be seen to have 'cool girl' points; the obsessive OS-writing nutjobs who spend over half their waking life attached to a terminal of some sort will probably still get weird looks. (i include myself in this category. :) > The seldomly considered notion is that there is a quiet but still > arguably instinctual desire among heterosexual males to find an > intelligent partner of the opposite sex. if they /are/ intelligent. > In this writing, I left the former sentence in its own paragraph to > show that it is a key proposition in this flow of logic. When you > consider how methodical the advertising people are while peddling > computers and services, more and more (in my opinion) you will see an > appeal in advertisements that makes the paradigm desireable woman. > Given the predominance of heterosexual sentiments, the appeal is > convertible. Men find themselves drawn by quiet instinct, and women > find themselves drawn by an implicit 'I ought to be like her," > sentiment. but is this image an /attainable/ one? i agree with your thought on marketing, but there's a /big/ difference between knowing how to use a windows box and, say, being able to set up a network or administrate one or write a driver or do /really/ geeky things. there's a difference between the 'aura' of competance and /real/ competance. > Now another area of clarification that I owe you all: > > I interspersed my opinion in the former posting that we ought to be > careful in the way that we encourage teens to pursue computational > goals. Central to this whole group of opinions is the opinion that > there ought to be an internal spark ignited that inspires curiosity and > intrinsic motivation to carry the motivations further. Exterior > "nudges
