View Full Version : Understanding sexism
ctc26
October 2nd, 2009, 02:26 AM
I, like many other members of the community, have read extensive accounts of sexism in the FOSS and Canonical stratosphere. But as with most responsible reporting, there has been an appeal to the emotive and contested aspects of sexism. Articles and blogs are constructed to create a divide between those who agree with the presence of sexism and those who do not.
Unfortunately, this has become a story in itself rather than a reflection of the comments and behavior of our open source representatives. Put simply, sexism is symbolic of a greater power play. Open source software is a minority within the wider software market. It is exactly for this reason that the community avidly promotes and directs FOSS development. The same can be said for female members of our community. Women see an opportunity to prosper in FOSS that has, as yet, not been realized to its full potential. Women are a minority. So it is understandable that women should expect the same consideration and inclusion within the community as they attempt to promote their own best interests. One would have thought the open source community could sympathize with this endeavor.
That does not mean we should criminalize those who lapse in their appreciation of female involvement. Our open source representatives have their own agenda, the expansion and improvement of their software within the marketplace. So when Mark comments on the difficulty of explaining open source software to women, he does so as a personal reflection on the difficulties of selling software to the greater society. It is unfortunate that he choose to do so upon personal reflection rather than as a broad statement relating to society, but so be it.
Sexist statements are so often construed as an underlying segregative intent. Therefore we demand an apology for what is interpreted as a selfish and inconsiderate temperament. For some, the promotion of female inclusion in FOSS is a foremost consideration, for others it is solely about the promotion of software. What drives a person also drives their interpretation of a statement such as Mark's.
If the point of critiquing Mark's comment is too identify sexism within the open source community and demand an apology, then it is not likely to succeed. Mark's comment was not said with a segregative intent and therefore he is not likely to cede an admission of guilt. If on the other hand, his comment is used to spur the involvement in open source software by women, then undoubtedly it will serve as a reminder of the conscientious people that do comprise our community.
Can you add to this?
ctc26.
dragos240
October 2nd, 2009, 02:27 AM
Huh?
hansdown
October 2nd, 2009, 02:39 AM
huh?
+1
jrusso2
October 2nd, 2009, 02:42 AM
Maybe Mark should be the one to clarify his meaning? Its easy to be offensive without trying.
JDShu
October 2nd, 2009, 02:43 AM
He is referring to the Mark Shuttleworth's "sexist" remarks debate. The most recent article on the topic on lxer.com is this (http://geekfeminism.org/2009/09/28/a-followup-on-the-shuttleworth-incident/)
Frak
October 2nd, 2009, 02:49 AM
I'll give my 2 cents.
Get over it.
jrusso2
October 2nd, 2009, 02:53 AM
What do you mean get over it? I have not heard any explanation or apology.
WorldTripping
October 2nd, 2009, 02:56 AM
<Nigel Tufnel>
Well, so what? What's wrong with bein' sexy?
</Nigel Tufnel>
Frak
October 2nd, 2009, 03:04 AM
What do you mean get over it? I have not heard any explanation or apology.
He was trying to be funny. If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not like he just ruled that he bought Earth and everybody is now his slave.
He made a joke, some people didn't like it, but it was just a joke. People are just trying to be difficult and stubborn with him.
jrusso2
October 2nd, 2009, 03:11 AM
You think Shuttleworth made a joke? I have not seen the whole transcript of what he said but the parts I read did not seem like a joke.
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 03:13 AM
You think Shuttleworth made a joke? I have not seen the whole transcript of what he said but the parts I read did not seem like a joke.
that much at least, is clear. we know you feel that way.
moster
October 2nd, 2009, 03:14 AM
Woman involvement in proprietary software: 28%
Woman involvement in FOSS software: 1,5%
Sexist and feminists have their own explanation for this but numbers are numbers. :D
Frak
October 2nd, 2009, 03:15 AM
You think Shuttleworth made a joke? I have not seen the whole transcript of what he said but the parts I read did not seem like a joke.
I re-read the quote and it just seems like he was making a reference to the "Your mom's printer, your grandma's printer" humorously.
As for guys knowing more about technology, to me it does seem to be the case. I see a lot more guys willing to tinker around than women. Men are more likely to try to fix something on their own, women aren't. I don't mean to sound sexist myself, but those are just some general observations of people around me.
-grubby
October 2nd, 2009, 03:17 AM
So he said "Linux is hard to explain to girls." In case you haven't noticed, less than half of Linux users are women.
Either way, it was a joke, and it seems like everyone's just over reacting.
ynnhoj
October 2nd, 2009, 04:13 AM
So he said "Linux is hard to explain to girls." In case you haven't noticed, less than half of Linux users are women.
Either way, it was a joke, and it seems like everyone's just over reacting.
i doubt that he meant any harm by saying what he did, but he ought to have known that some people would over react to it. certain topics are senstive to people. you can make a joke while still being tactful.
Frak
October 2nd, 2009, 04:14 AM
i doubt that he meant any harm by saying what he did, but he ought to have known that some people would over react to it. certain topics are senstive to people. you can make a joke while still being tactful.
I must really not understand why people care. It doesn't directly affect them in life, so why does it matter.
ynnhoj
October 2nd, 2009, 04:28 AM
I must really not understand why people care. It doesn't directly affect them in life, so why does it matter.
human nature? i dunno, i think people care about many different things that don't directly affect them in their lives.
i don't particularly care about the joke that Shuttleworth made either---the point is that he ought to have a little more common sense, particularly when speaking publicly. any remark or joke that could somehow be deemed sexist (no matter how innocent the speaker might believe it to be) is going to bother somebody. sexism is a sensitive issue.
juancarlospaco
October 2nd, 2009, 04:34 AM
"Linux is hard to explain to girls."
"Linux is hard to explain to boys."
Balanced :)
Who cares
Tipped OuT
October 2nd, 2009, 04:36 AM
"Linux is hard to explain to girls."
"Linux is hard to explain to boys."
Balanced :)
Who cares
But it is kind of true though. Linux is hard to explain to girls. Unless you're explaining it to your local geeky girlfriend. :)
toupeiro
October 2nd, 2009, 06:36 AM
grow thicker skin... I'm really sick of everyone apologising to everyone else because someone can't handle someone doing or saying something, in their point of view, that isn't politically correct. In stead of saying sorry, Mark, say get over it!
Thank you drive through.
jrusso2
October 2nd, 2009, 07:52 AM
There are some things its better not to joke about.
Substitute who he is talking about and it changes the meaning.
IE
Its difficult to explain Linux to African Americans.
Its not very funny.
TO mods that's an example only.
moster
October 2nd, 2009, 08:06 AM
Come on jrusso, whole linux/open source thing is geeky. And most girls do not like geek stuff.
kirsis
October 2nd, 2009, 08:20 AM
There are some things its better not to joke about.
Substitute who he is talking about and it changes the meaning.
IE
Its difficult to explain Linux to African Americans.
Its not very funny.
TO mods that's an example only.
Did he say that? No. Because it's not the same ******* thing, you can't just go around saying "but if he had said X instead of Y, that'd be baaaaaaad" when there's a reason why X gets said in the first place.
Allow me to examplify:
There are some things its better not to joke about.
Substitute who he is talking about and it changes the meaning.
IE
Its difficult to explain Linux to African Americans.
Its not very funny.
TO mods that's an example only.
Yes, but if jrusso2 had said that it IS very funny and is not an example at all, then everybody would be offended. I demand an apology!
I'm starting to think there's way too much whiny oversensitive people in the F/OSS community who prefer to cry over doing something worthwhile.
Bodsda
October 2nd, 2009, 08:25 AM
I find this so funny. Sexism is being completely misconstrued, almost to the same extent as racism.
Whenever something negative or non-positive is said to a group of people, then they scream either sexist or racist regardless of how the original comment was meant.
If he had said 'Women "can't" understand this, it's too complicated' then that is sexist, but he didnt, he made a comment from his own personal experience of trying to explain things to women.
Everyone likes to throw around the 'men can't multi task' statement; especially women, but does that make everyone who says it a sexist? No.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 08:39 AM
Sexism is difficult to explain to boys.
Giant Speck
October 2nd, 2009, 08:41 AM
Sexism is difficult to explain to boys.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3367265715_96427509c4.jpg?v=0
wilee-nilee
October 2nd, 2009, 08:41 AM
What is unfourtanate about this situation is that making fun of or joking about a institutionalized power control system; patriarchal, and patronizing the marginalization of women. It may seem funny to some of you, so be it, but try putting yourself in the shoes of this marginalized group. Now the second sin(contextually)in this is to generalize about socially taught norms of this group generally does this. The third sin is the omission of them in a historical or modern context. Now this is a schema that crosses, gender. sexuality, class, ethnicity---etc.
Exodist
October 2nd, 2009, 08:55 AM
he was trying to be funny. If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not like he just ruled that he bought earth and everybody is now his slave.
He made a joke, some people didn't like it, but it was just a joke. People are just trying to be difficult and stubborn with him.
+1
toupeiro
October 2nd, 2009, 09:39 AM
Sexism is difficult to explain to boys.
Not true. I just think that far too many people, male and female alike, are WAY too sensitive about things like this, especially in this particular instance. Some would even consider your comment sexist. Not me, personally, but perhaps people of the same mindset who took Marks comments as sexist.
The people who go to these extremes don't care that their demands for constant apologies regarding statements they took completely out of context are usually seen as offensive as well. Its a power trip thing, that I personally have less and less patience for.
sliketymo
October 2nd, 2009, 09:39 AM
I, like many other members of the community, have read extensive accounts of sexism in the FOSS and Canonical stratosphere. But as with most responsible reporting, there has been an appeal to the emotive and contested aspects of sexism. Articles and blogs are constructed to create a divide between those who agree with the presence of sexism and those who do not.
Unfortunately, this has become a story in itself rather than a reflection of the comments and behavior of our open source representatives. Put simply, sexism is symbolic of a greater power play. Open source software is a minority within the wider software market. It is exactly for this reason that the community avidly promotes and directs FOSS development. The same can be said for female members of our community. Women see an opportunity to prosper in FOSS that has, as yet, not been realized to its full potential. Women are a minority. So it is understandable that women should expect the same consideration and inclusion within the community as they attempt to promote their own best interests. One would have thought the open source community could sympathize with this endeavor.
That does not mean we should criminalize those who lapse in their appreciation of female involvement. Our open source representatives have their own agenda, the expansion and improvement of their software within the marketplace. So when Mark comments on the difficulty of explaining open source software to women, he does so as a personal reflection on the difficulties of selling software to the greater society. It is unfortunate that he choose to do so upon personal reflection rather than as a broad statement relating to society, but so be it.
Sexist statements are so often construed as an underlying segregative intent. Therefore we demand an apology for what is interpreted as a selfish and inconsiderate temperament. For some, the promotion of female inclusion in FOSS is a foremost consideration, for others it is solely about the promotion of software. What drives a person also drives their interpretation of a statement such as Mark's.
If the point of critiquing Mark's comment is too identify sexism within the open source community and demand an apology, then it is not likely to succeed. Mark's comment was not said with a segregative intent and therefore he is not likely to cede an admission of guilt. If on the other hand, his comment is used to spur the involvement in open source software by women, then undoubtedly it will serve as a reminder of the conscientious people that do comprise our community.
Can you add to this?
ctc26.
:guitar:I agree completely!We need more sex!
Chronon
October 2nd, 2009, 09:51 AM
Some would even consider your comment sexist. Not me, personally, but perhaps people of the same mindset who took Marks comments as sexist.
Therein lies the humor, from my vantage point. I believe her comment was more subtle than you appreciated.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 09:57 AM
Not true. I just think that far too many people, male and female alike, are WAY too sensitive about things like this, especially in this particular instance. Some would even consider your comment sexist. Not me, personally, but perhaps people of the same mindset who took Marks comments as sexist.
The people who go to these extremes don't care that their demands for constant apologies regarding statements they took completely out of context are usually seen as offensive as well. Its a power trip thing, that I personally have less and less patience for.
My comment was sexist.
Shuttleworth's comment was sexist.
Cripes. It's not rocket science: If something derogatory is said about a group that is not actually true for the group, it's a group-ist statement.
Examples:
"Black people can't resist watermelon." - Racist
"Men only care about getting rocks off." - Sexist
"Linux users all live in their parent's basement and have terrible hygiene." - Linuxist.
I want the sexism to stop. I don't require any special explanations and help to use my computers, and I'm sick of people suggesting that I do because I'm a woman. So, I put pressure on folks who say sexist things - like demanding an apology for saying something like that. I do similar for racism.
And tossing the "joke" tag on it doesn't make it all better. I don't know where some folks get the idea that a joke is always acceptable.
Xbehave
October 2nd, 2009, 10:27 AM
Cripes. It's not rocket science: If something derogatory is said about a group that is not actually true for the group, it's a group-ist statement
What about positive comments:
"Black men have big willies" ~Racist?
"Jew's are good with money" ~Racist?
"Women are good cooks" ~Sexist?
"Gay's have good fashion sense" ~Homophobic?
Paqman
October 2nd, 2009, 10:39 AM
I don't require any special explanations and help to use my computers, and I'm sick of people suggesting that I do because I'm a woman.
Do you think that's what Mark was actually suggesting though? I think both you and he would agree that a Linux-competent female is an even rarer creature than a Linux-competent male. You're something of a special case.
Personally I think he could have phrased himself more diplomatically, but once you see past the Saffa-isms it seems pretty obvious that the point he was addressing wasn't one of gender, but one of engaging with new users. Getting distracted by the gender thing misses the point entirely, IMO. He was talking about age more than gender. Why is nobody accusing him of ageism?
Since people seem genuinely pissed off about this, maybe he should suck it up and apologise, but I don't think him doing so would really be any kind of victory over injustice.
moster
October 2nd, 2009, 10:55 AM
What is all that fuss around here.
Number of girl linux users are comparable with number of girl car engine tunning enthusiasts.
When you think it cannot be worse, those which are with some miracle heree, they are feminists. OMG
Chronon
October 2nd, 2009, 11:10 AM
My comment was sexist.
Shuttleworth's comment was sexist.
Cripes. It's not rocket science: If something derogatory is said about a group that is not actually true for the group, it's a group-ist statement.
Examples:
"Black people can't resist watermelon." - Racist
"Men only care about getting rocks off." - Sexist
"Linux users all live in their parent's basement and have terrible hygiene." - Linuxist.
I want the sexism to stop. I don't require any special explanations and help to use my computers, and I'm sick of people suggesting that I do because I'm a woman. So, I put pressure on folks who say sexist things - like demanding an apology for saying something like that. I do similar for racism.
And tossing the "joke" tag on it doesn't make it all better. I don't know where some folks get the idea that a joke is always acceptable.
It would be more accurate to say: "If something is said about a group that is not actually true for the group, it's a group-ist statement." There's no requirement that the something be derogatory. Saying that women are nurturing is just as sexist as any other statement that you could make about the set of all adult female humans.
Talking about any group leads one to speak in generalities and to confuse the facts of individual humans with average stereotypes that don't actually represent anyone. (There isn't really an average person anywhere when you get down to it.) Speaking in generalities simply leads to misunderstandings.
It seems that everyone's feelings could have been spared with a simple inclusion of "some but not all" -- making it clear that an individual is not defined by a statistically average property of a descriptive group to which they may be said to belong. In another context, I could say, "Some but not all Japanese people speak poorer English than some but not all American people." This would clearly be a group-ist statement without the "some but not all"s. Similarly, saying that humans are bipedal is group-ist as well.
etnlIcarus
October 2nd, 2009, 11:35 AM
I, like many other members of the community, have read extensive accounts of sexism in the FOSS and Canonical stratosphere. But as with most responsible reporting, there has been an appeal to the emotive and contested aspects of sexism. Articles and blogs are constructed to create a divide between those who agree with the presence of sexism and those who do not.
Unfortunately, this has become a story in itself rather than a reflection of the comments and behavior of our open source representatives. Put simply, sexism is symbolic of a greater power play. Open source software is a minority within the wider software market. It is exactly for this reason that the community avidly promotes and directs FOSS development. The same can be said for female members of our community. Women see an opportunity to prosper in FOSS that has, as yet, not been realized to its full potential. Women are a minority. So it is understandable that women should expect the same consideration and inclusion within the community as they attempt to promote their own best interests. One would have thought the open source community could sympathize with this endeavor.
That does not mean we should criminalize those who lapse in their appreciation of female involvement. Our open source representatives have their own agenda, the expansion and improvement of their software within the marketplace. So when Mark comments on the difficulty of explaining open source software to women, he does so as a personal reflection on the difficulties of selling software to the greater society. It is unfortunate that he choose to do so upon personal reflection rather than as a broad statement relating to society, but so be it.
Sexist statements are so often construed as an underlying segregative intent. Therefore we demand an apology for what is interpreted as a selfish and inconsiderate temperament. For some, the promotion of female inclusion in FOSS is a foremost consideration, for others it is solely about the promotion of software. What drives a person also drives their interpretation of a statement such as Mark's.
If the point of critiquing Mark's comment is too identify sexism within the open source community and demand an apology, then it is not likely to succeed. Mark's comment was not said with a segregative intent and therefore he is not likely to cede an admission of guilt. If on the other hand, his comment is used to spur the involvement in open source software by women, then undoubtedly it will serve as a reminder of the conscientious people that do comprise our community.
Can you add to this?
ctc26.Someone's been playing with the post-modernist essay generator.
I, like many other members of the community, have read extensive accounts of sexism in the FOSS and Canonical stratosphere.I've read a couple of articles with a few questionable anecdotal accounts. Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us.
But as with most responsible reporting, there has been an appeal to the emotive and contested aspects of sexism.wut
Articles and blogs are constructed to create a divide between those who agree with the presence of sexism and those who do not.I'm almost tempted to ignore this statement, since it isn't taken anywhere but this is still just wrong. Many blogs, sure. A few articles, perhaps.
Put simply, sexism is symbolic of a greater power play.
...
One would have thought the open source community could sympathize with this endeavorThis would require one to appreciate the symbolic relationship, let alone grant you your intervening assertions. I do neither.
Women are a minority. So...This is the second time you've tried to link disparate propositions, after you began your second sentence with, "But".
It is unfortunate that he choose to do so upon personal reflection rather than as a broad statement relating to society, but so be it.wut
Anyway, I'm gunna end it there. I don't necessarily disagree with all your conclusions but god damn, if that wasn't one frustrating post to read...
koshatnik
October 2nd, 2009, 11:37 AM
What about positive comments:
"Black men have big willies" ~Racist?
"Jew's are good with money" ~Racist?
"Women are good cooks" ~Sexist?
"Gay's have good fashion sense" ~Homophobic?
Oh man, you really don't get it do you?
@Jill. Yeah, you get it. Now you just have to wait for everyone to catch up. It might take awhile.
wilee-nilee
October 2nd, 2009, 11:46 AM
@Jill. Yeah, you get it. Now you just have to wait for everyone to catch up. It might take awhile.[/quote]
+1
etnlIcarus
October 2nd, 2009, 11:49 AM
Well you guys have been absolutely invaluable at 'catching people up'. Two thumbs up.
Edit: le sigh: sarcasm disclaimer.
jonian_g
October 2nd, 2009, 11:51 AM
My comment was sexist.
Shuttleworth's comment was sexist.
Cripes. It's not rocket science: If something derogatory is said about a group that is not actually true for the group, it's a group-ist statement.
Examples:
"Black people can't resist watermelon." - Racist
"Men only care about getting rocks off." - Sexist
"Linux users all live in their parent's basement and have terrible hygiene." - Linuxist.
I want the sexism to stop. I don't require any special explanations and help to use my computers, and I'm sick of people suggesting that I do because I'm a woman. So, I put pressure on folks who say sexist things - like demanding an apology for saying something like that. I do similar for racism.
And tossing the "joke" tag on it doesn't make it all better. I don't know where some folks get the idea that a joke is always acceptable.
I think Mark made a joke. Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys.
People should bother with more important things:
-Women don't get the same career opportunities as men
-Women get paid less for the same job that a man does
-Women, in some countries, are not allowed to vote
etc...
Chronon
October 2nd, 2009, 11:54 AM
Oh man, you really don't get it do you?
@Jill. Yeah, you get it. Now you just have to wait for everyone to catch up. It might take awhile.
I don't see what's false about that. Sexism corresponds to discrimination based on gender. Rationales for selecting one gender or another can be phrased positively or negatively. Both are fallacious.
Bachstelze
October 2nd, 2009, 12:13 PM
/facepalm
Sean Moran
October 2nd, 2009, 12:14 PM
/facepalm
How did I ever guess! :KS
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 12:20 PM
Ugh, Nevermind.
After reading the thread a bit, I despair our species.
ctc26
October 2nd, 2009, 12:32 PM
@ etnlIcarus
Thanks, I understand your fustration over the use of syntax. The post is a terrible paraphraise of my initial thoughts, that is too concise and deductive (legalese is responsible). This aside, I am glad that you 'don't necessarily disagree' with the argument (which I hope is your primary motivation for posting).
Giant Speck
October 2nd, 2009, 02:44 PM
I think the joke "It's hard to explain Linux to girls" was more of a joke on himself than it was a sexist comment. If he really wanted to be sexist and mean it, he would have said something like "Girls just don't understand Linux."
But what do I know? I'm just a white man in his twenties, and because of those traits, I am incapable of understanding racism, sexism, and ageism.
etnlIcarus
October 2nd, 2009, 02:48 PM
I'm a white male in my 20s and I don't understand far more than that.
which I hope is your primary motivation for postingMore boredom + desperate attempt to interact with anyone half-way intelligent.
RiceMonster
October 2nd, 2009, 02:53 PM
So many sweeping generalizations in this thread.
What about positive comments:
"Black men have big willies" ~Racist?
"Jew's are good with money" ~Racist?
"Women are good cooks" ~Sexist?
"Gay's have good fashion sense" ~Homophobic?
Positive or not, it's still a stereotype and people do not like being branded based on some kind of group they may fall under.
moster
October 2nd, 2009, 02:58 PM
I'm a white male in my 20s and I don't understand far more than that.
Rly?! I thought you are south-american native indian redhead female. Oh, this forum is deceiving, I will never make same mistake again.
;)
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 03:55 PM
After reading the thread a bit, I despair our species.
You read this thread and NOW despair our species? Christ get yourself into religion! Only once you see what religion is capable of, will you truly despair this species, this thread is a storm in a teacup at best.
etnlIcarus
October 2nd, 2009, 04:04 PM
Religion, popular culture, the boomers, anyone who grew up during the 80's, half the people I went to school with. There's plenty to despair over.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 04:34 PM
I think Mark made a joke. Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys.See what you said here? It's wrong.
People should bother with more important things:
-Women don't get the same career opportunities as men
-Women get paid less for the same job that a man does
-Women, in some countries, are not allowed to vote
etc...
The attitude you espoused in the first sentence is the reason for the "more important things".
Lesser interest among women in things "technical" is a result of social and community expectations more than it is the result of phenotypes and neurological predisposition.
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 05:10 PM
See what you said here? It's wrong.
The attitude you espoused in the first sentence is the reason for the "more important things".
Lesser interest among women in things "technical" is a result of social and community expectations more than it is the result of phenotypes and neurological predisposition.
I'm sorry, it seems like you are saying that all things are the same. women, men, cats, dogs, linux, windows, earth, moon, elephants, mice, platapi, etc.
are you saying that by examining the nature of something to draw conclusions about it and other things within it's classification is wrong per your morality? so are you offended by "water is clear"? or that bipedal species have 2 legs? or that dogs are fuzzy? this are all partial truths, but if you emphasize the "partial" part then all observations are out the window.
if one electron flows in one direction, are you saying that we should assume the next electron in the stream could follow any path?
if we were to cease generalizing catagories, all conventional logic breaks down. how do you create an antacedent without a classification?
we generalize because we have to. no one is equipped to process the input that a human encounters daily, without making more assumptions than analysis's. no one would ever be able to come to a conclusion.
now don't get me wrong, I believe that detrimental sexism is bad, but I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady. you make reasonable assumptions, and remain open to exceptional cases. thats all a human can do.
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 05:16 PM
but I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/BIO105/ribs.htm
what a terrible example!
Women can be just as good at computers as men, and in my opinion this is one of the best fields they can get into, there is no corporate ladder or glass ceiling, there are no limitations stopping them from creating the best applications in the world, the sky really is the limit for either gender and/or sexual orientation. a level playing field for all.
Most women I talk to just don't get into computers, but saying that, neither do most guys, a computer is a tool, in the same way I treat a car, I have no desire to go under the hood and tinker with it, I just want it to do its job, the issue most women are pointing at is whenever a female is mentioned it's in a condescending way, so many people quote "easier to explain to girls what we do" as if Mark was saying "I have trouble explaining to girls what I do because I use a computer and girls are no good at them LOL" which I'm sure if you're from a non-english speaking background or just read a bunch of terrible blog posts on a bunch of terrible linux sites is pretty understandable.
My interpretation which as far as I'm aware is the correct version, is that it's very hard to impress people with poorly designed programs, which FOSS programmers seem to be pumping out a lot of, and that canonical is trying to focus on fixing, and thus showing off the best of OSS.
koenn
October 2nd, 2009, 05:21 PM
See what you said here? It's wrong.
"Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys" is a generalization. Nothing wrong with that. And as with al generalizations, it's implicitly understood that there may be exceptions.
Such a statement becomes sexist if it's more than an observation, i.e. if there's subtext, hidden agendas, implied meanings, value statements, - stuff along the lines of
"Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys [ so they're somewhat inferior, because technology matters]"
"Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys, so they're somewhat inferior[, they lack the intelligence it takes to understand it]"
"Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys, so you should become a secretary, not an engineer"
"Girls don't show the same interest in technology as boys, so this software project i'm running refuses bug reports and patches from women"
jrusso2
October 2nd, 2009, 05:25 PM
Sexism is difficult to explain to boys.
First accurate comment
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 05:33 PM
First accurate comment
poster 1: mark is sexist
poster 2: no he wasn't because he was commenting about foss design policy/about girls not being interested in technology.
poster 1: it's still sexist
poster 2: you don't understand
poster 1: no you don't!
poster 2: NO U DON'T
I wonder where this is going =o
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 05:34 PM
First accurate comment
so you're as guilty as you claim the OSS community is?
"accurate" implies a objective standard for judgment, but you have to realize that there are no objective frames of reference. only your subjective perception of any given phenomena.
Bachstelze
October 2nd, 2009, 05:35 PM
so you're as guilty as you claim the OSS community is?
"accurate" implies a objective standard for judgment, but you have to realize that there are no objective frames of reference. only your subjective perception of any given phenomena.
When you want to be pedantic, you better not mix singular and plural. It makes a bad impression.
toupeiro
October 2nd, 2009, 05:36 PM
ugh, nevermind.
After reading the thread a bit, i despair our species.
+1
jrusso2
October 2nd, 2009, 05:42 PM
so you're as guilty as you claim the OSS community is?
"accurate" implies a objective standard for judgment, but you have to realize that there are no objective frames of reference. only your subjective perception of any given phenomena.
My point is the thread was full or rhetoric until another female posts a sexist comment to show exactly what its about?
Was it a joke? Do men have a problem understanding sexism? You decide.
-grubby
October 2nd, 2009, 05:44 PM
first accurate comment
omg sexist!!!!!!!!11
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 05:44 PM
omg sexist!!!!!!!!11
+1
Excellent post.
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 05:48 PM
When you want to be pedantic, you better not mix singular and plural. It makes a bad impression.
lol. at least I had a point. ad hominem about spelling is the depth of "pedantic".
also you seem to assume that there is only one objective frame of reference for all phenoma for which the term "accurate" could be applied. this is a non-sequitur. Read some Einstein.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 05:55 PM
I'm sorry, it seems like you are saying that all things are the same. women, men, cats, dogs, linux, windows, earth, moon, elephants, mice, platapi, etc.
are you saying that by examining the nature of something to draw conclusions about it and other things within it's classification is wrong per your morality? so are you offended by "water is clear"? or that bipedal species have 2 legs? or that dogs are fuzzy? this are all partial truths, but if you emphasize the "partial" part then all observations are out the window.
if one electron flows in one direction, are you saying that we should assume the next electron in the stream could follow any path?
if we were to cease generalizing catagories, all conventional logic breaks down. how do you create an antacedent without a classification?
we generalize because we have to. no one is equipped to process the input that a human encounters daily, without making more assumptions than analysis's. no one would ever be able to come to a conclusion.
now don't get me wrong, I believe that detrimental sexism is bad, but I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady. you make reasonable assumptions, and remain open to exceptional cases. thats all a human can do.
If the generalization is wrong, it's wrong. It's not ignoring that we humans categorize, it's recognizing that the categories can include false information. The generalization that women have less interest - and more so that women have less capability - in the "technical" is just plain wrong.
People's "personal observations" that are being referenced so often are the results of confirmation bias. It's remembering when the action matches the expectation that's being observed. One will find - if observed more objectively - that both genders have very similar aptitude for tool use.
By the way. What do you mean "I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady"? Both genders do have the same number of ribs.
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 05:57 PM
By the way. What do you mean "I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady"? Both genders do have the same number of ribs.
No, men have 1 less rib because god used it to make woman :lolflag:
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 06:04 PM
By the way. What do you mean "I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady"? Both genders do have the same number of ribs.
lol, yes that has been pointed out to me. but on the upside, I'm improving...I no longer believe that thunder sours milk, or that your soul escapes through your nose while sneezing.
Keyper7
October 2nd, 2009, 06:38 PM
I don't think Mark's comment was sexist. Not at all. He simply said "for me it's hard to explain what I do when I'm trying to impress someone of the opposite sex". Because of a very unfortunate sequence of genetic events, he is an heterossexual male and therefore that "someone" happens to be a girl.
What he said could be easily replaced by "for <insert female Ubuntu developer here>, it's hard to explain what she does when she's trying to impress boys".
Of course, I can't read Mark's mind so I can't say anything for sure. But I saw no sexism.
He should, however, rephrased the sentence so that it would be gender-neutral. Not because of political correctness, but because a good speaker tries to connect with the entire audience.
ice60
October 2nd, 2009, 06:51 PM
go mark! don't listen to the feminists, down with the feminists!!!! they'll purposely misinterpret anything for 'the cause'
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 06:52 PM
go mark! don't listen to the feminists, down with the feminists!!!! they'll purposely misinterpret anything for 'the cause'
that's not funny because a lot of people are like that, which makes it sad, especially when I hear women saying it :(
"men go out and do the work, women stay home and take care of the children, that's the way god intended"
cariboo
October 2nd, 2009, 07:07 PM
Please stop bringing religion into the thread.
koenn
October 2nd, 2009, 07:38 PM
He simply said "for me it's hard to explain what I do when I'm trying to impress someone of the opposite sex".
Is that an actual quote ?
I've been looking to find the exact quote (I'm looking at the video right now, but it's quite long)
Cause 'in the blogs', it's mentioned as Shuttleworth saying "It's hard to explain Linux to girls" or things along those lines.
Which, to me, suggests people are misquoting and taking things out of context to make their point, either deliberately (there seems to be a bit of a 'sexism in FOSS' witch hunt going on the internetz), or because their perception is overly affected by their ideals, morals,values ....
Chronon
October 2nd, 2009, 07:43 PM
By the way. What do you mean "I also think it's stupid to assume that a man might have the same number of ribs as a lady"? Both genders do have the same number of ribs.
You have uttered a group-ist fallacy. Whether by birth defect, surgery or other reasons, I am sure that the number of ribs is not identical in every single human.
If the generalization is wrong, it's wrong. It's not ignoring that we humans categorize, it's recognizing that the categories can include false information.
Yes, so your above statement is false, by the very criterion that you mention here.
People tend to speak in terms of categories in informal settings because it is often more concise, if less accurate. As koenn pointed out, it's not the utterance of a generalization that is problematic. It's confusing the generalization with reality and embedded subtext that accompanies this confusion.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 07:50 PM
You have uttered a group-ist fallacy. Whether by birth defect, surgery or other reasons, I am sure that the number of ribs is not identical in every single human.I counter that by proclaiming that anyone who has more or fewer than 12 pairs of ribs isn't human. So there. :p :mrgreen:
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 07:54 PM
I counter that by proclaiming that anyone who has more or fewer than 12 pairs of ribs isn't human. So there. :p :mrgreen:
I had a roommate with 5 wisdom teeth, and a friend with 11 toes. lol.
MellonCollie
October 2nd, 2009, 07:55 PM
Is that an actual quote ?
I've been looking to find the exact quote (I'm looking at the video right now, but it's quite long)
Cause 'in the blogs', it's mentioned as Shuttleworth saying "It's hard to explain Linux to girls" or things along those lines.
"How many of you guys know Till [Kamppeter]... making sure that your printer, your mom's printer, my grandma's printer just work out of the box...if we can do the same with sound, if we can do the same with wi-fi, we can do the same for various other amazing subsystems that are going to come into the kernel...if we approach this from the perspective of saying "How do we make this just awesome for end users" then we'll have less trouble explaining to girls what we actually do."
http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/09/mark-shuttlewor-1.html
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 07:56 PM
I had a roommate with 5 wisdom teethOwies!
, and a friend with 11 toes. lol.That means either better balance, or being able to address slightly larger sums. ;)
Mornedhel
October 2nd, 2009, 07:57 PM
You have uttered a group-ist fallacy. Whether by birth defect, surgery or other reasons, I am sure that the number of ribs is not identical in every single human.
But this generalization "everybody has a fixed number N of ribs" (yeah, can you tell I don't remember the actual amount ?) does not provide a criterion for discrimination. It only says that : "having more or less than N ribs is statistically unlikely". It's not like you will, for instance, refuse to hire someone because he had surgery and is missing a rib. On the other hand, you might refuse to hire a woman into IT because she's probably less apt at technology and won't get along with the other guys, or worse, distract them.
The generalization "women are not into technology" provides, at best, a heuristic to determine whether the person in front of you is into technology or not. The point is that if we ceased to use that generalization, women would probably become no less interested in technology than men, because the social pressure ("girls are into dolls, not computers") would also cease (well, it would probably take time...). There *always* is subtext when you make that kind of assumption. Even "Women are not into technology because they prefer [some womenish activity]" carries rather heavy subtext ("because that's all they're good at").
The ribs thing is statistically provable and not socially-enforced. The tech thing is statistically provable (in all likelihood -- because, let's face it, right now you only need to look at the students in a CS classroom to see that CS is not perceived as a women's field, even among women), but it's a social, artificial distinction that serves no purpose. We're denying possibilities to women who try to enter the field.
I don't think we're denying anything to the non-fuzzy dogs or the guy with a missing rib.
Edit: Well, okay, maybe non-fuzzy dogs are not as well-liked as fuzzy dogs, but that starts to be discrimination if you replace non-fuzzy dog with non-white people.
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 08:05 PM
" then we'll have less trouble explaining to girls what we actually do."
Yeah, he should have said "then we'll have less trouble explaining to potential life mates what we actually do."
The context of his statement was not meant to be sexist I do not think; it appears to me he is a straight male who is dating, or has dated a person of the opposite sex that was not tech savvy, but who was interested in his work, and he found it tiring to attempt to explain. Had he been gay, or a Marsha instead of a Mark, he may have said, "then we'll have less trouble explaining to boys what we actually do.", and no one would have said jack about it.
Everyone here realizes that his words are being twisted out of likely context right? I seriously doubt Mark is a sexist, and I highly doubt his phrase(however poorly thought out) was meant in the light it has been cast.
Western culture has become so obsessed with Political Correctness, that no one knows how to hear any more; sure you all listened, but you heard nothing; you went with the most negative interpretation of his statement, and here we are.
I still despair our species.
adrianx
October 2nd, 2009, 08:06 PM
Let's face it... Linux geeks are not exactly babe magnets. :evil:
....couldn't resist. :)
FuturePilot
October 2nd, 2009, 08:09 PM
I had a roommate with 5 wisdom teeth
I had 6 where's my prize?
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 08:09 PM
I don't think Mark's comment was sexist. Not at all. He simply said "for me it's hard to explain what I do when I'm trying to impress someone of the opposite sex". Because of a very unfortunate sequence of genetic events, he is an heterossexual male and therefore that "someone" happens to be a girl.
What he said could be easily replaced by "for <insert female Ubuntu developer here>, it's hard to explain what she does when she's trying to impress boys".
Of course, I can't read Mark's mind so I can't say anything for sure. But I saw no sexism.
He should, however, rephrased the sentence so that it would be gender-neutral. Not because of political correctness, but because a good speaker tries to connect with the entire audience.
+1
Wish I had seen this post before I made my previous post, same thing, different way of saying it. Keyper is correct; and ignoring the most likely reality is just asinine. Or continue to perceive the worst about people, I'm sure that will work out nicely, right?
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 08:09 PM
Owies!
That means either better balance, or being able to address slightly larger sums. ;)
in his case it's likely larger sums. he's a good friend, but not a exactly a stimulating conversationalist (unlike yourself).
best regards,
franklin
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 08:11 PM
I had 6 where's my prize?
as i understand it, behind door #1 we have heavy ansthesia, and behind #2 we have a world of pain
koshatnik
October 2nd, 2009, 08:13 PM
With threads like this, who needs alcohol?
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 08:16 PM
Yeah, he should have said "then we'll have less trouble explaining to potential life mates what we actually do."Or just "people".
The context of his statement was not meant to be sexist I do not think; it appears to me he is a straight male who is dating, or has dated a person of the opposite sex that was not tech savvy, but who was interested in his work, and he found it tiring to attempt to explain. Had he been gay, or a Marsha instead of a Mark, he may have said, "then we'll have less trouble explaining to boys what we actually do.", and no one would have said jack about it.
Everyone here realizes that his words are being twisted out of likely context right? I seriously doubt Mark is a sexist, and I highly doubt his phrase(however poorly thought out) was meant in the light it has been cast.
Western culture has become so obsessed with Political Correctness, that no one knows how to hear any more; sure you all listened, but you heard nothing; you went with the most negative interpretation of his statement, and here we are.
I still despair our species.
Phfft.
There is no reason to believe that Shuttleworth intended his statement to be sexist. None at all.
But that doesn't stop it from being sexist. He just let his preconceptions shape his expression, and his uncritical choice led him to a sexist statement.
There is no use in demanding an apology from someone who is consciously/deliberately sexist (or any -ist). Lost cause that.
However, someone like Shuttleworth is capable of recognizing his mistake, and his apology would mean something; specifically, it would help raise awareness of the fallacy of "women=lesser techies".
Political correctness be damned. Removing false ideas from the field is the point.
lisati
October 2nd, 2009, 08:18 PM
A reply after skipping a couple of pages of discussion: Major <facepalm> for this thread. When will people realise that being of equal value isn't the same as being identical?
dragos240
October 2nd, 2009, 08:20 PM
This thread is still active :confused:.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 08:21 PM
A reply after skipping a couple of pages of discussion: Major <facepalm> for this thread. When will people realise that being of equal value isn't the same as being identical?
Given that sexism is about an a priori judgment of lesser value...
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 08:22 PM
This thread is still active :confused:.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8041022&postcount=58
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 08:28 PM
A reply after skipping a couple of pages of discussion: Major <facepalm> for this thread. When will people realise that being of equal value isn't the same as being identical?
when all attributes are of equal "value" from all perspectives. that is the core of the problem. people place inconsistent value on differant attributes based on their subjective point of view.
pig iron and steel are of equal value as mineral alloys, but when you are trying to make a knife out of them, steel looks superior.
lisati
October 2nd, 2009, 08:35 PM
Given that sexism is about an a priori judgment of lesser value...
That's it exactly: sexism is a prime example of where people mistakenly associate differences with inferiority or superiority. To be of equal value I don't expect Mrs Lisati to become identical to myself. (To be fair, she's of immense value, having her around is pretty neat. Trying to make her of equal value to me would risk losing some of her finer qualities.)
moster
October 2nd, 2009, 08:36 PM
These few girls around here need major reality check. 1 female in whole KDE team and 1 in the Gnome team. Overall 1,5% in FOSS. And after that Mark DARE to say that girl are difficult to understand linux. Oh, how rude of him!
You know, I would be really shame to even bring up this question about Shuttleworth joke. Like you have something to be proud of and Shuttleworth deny that.
koenn
October 2nd, 2009, 08:39 PM
Or just "people".
However, someone like Shuttleworth is capable of recognizing his mistake, and his apology would mean something; specifically, it would help raise awareness of the fallacy of "women=lesser techies".
Political correctness be damned. Removing false ideas from the field is the point.
and the reason Shuttleworth didn't apologize even when prompted to, might indicate he's convinced he didn't do/say anything wrong. I'd probably do the same.
You're focusing on a symptom - even if you can make it go away, you won't have cured the disease.
If indeed there are less women in IT, or in technology fields in general, and if this is because society teaches girls to take a liking to "womanly" professions/hobbies in stead of "manly" IT and stuff, stopping people to make jokes about it isn't going to help.
On the other hand, if there'd be a reasonable man/woman ratio in those fields, jokes like the one Shutlleworth made, or generalisations about 'woman are less into technology' would disappear, simply because they'd be meaningless.
lykwydchykyn
October 2nd, 2009, 08:48 PM
There is no reason to believe that Shuttleworth intended his statement to be sexist. None at all.
But that doesn't stop it from being sexist. He just let his preconceptions shape his expression, and his uncritical choice led him to a sexist statement.
There is no use in demanding an apology from someone who is consciously/deliberately sexist (or any -ist). Lost cause that.
However, someone like Shuttleworth is capable of recognizing his mistake, and his apology would mean something; specifically, it would help raise awareness of the fallacy of "women=lesser techies".
Political correctness be damned. Removing false ideas from the field is the point.
I think that's reasonable. Considering the hubbub that's come of what he said, I don't see why he can't clarify his words and apologize for any misunderstanding. Sure, it won't fly with some, but if something I said were being taken this wrongly I'd sure want people to know what I meant.
I think you'll find that a lot of men balk at accusations of sexism because it's a word that carries such heavy connotations, yet has such a broad and easily-met definition.
I mean, careless comments like this --offensive as some may find them-- are a far cry from the stereotypical womanizing CEO who fondles his secretary and refuses to promote women beyond middle management; or the stereotypical backwoods wife-beater.
But the word "sexist" encompasses them all, and who wants to be lumped in with such company because of a poor choice of words?
Chronon
October 2nd, 2009, 08:54 PM
But this generalization "everybody has a fixed number N of ribs" (yeah, can you tell I don't remember the actual amount ?) does not provide a criterion for discrimination. It only says that : "having more or less than N ribs is statistically unlikely". It's not like you will, for instance, refuse to hire someone because he had surgery and is missing a rib. On the other hand, you might refuse to hire a woman into IT because she's probably less apt at technology and won't get along with the other guys, or worse, distract them.
How do you know what my feelings are toward people with different numbers of ribs? What makes you think that there's hiring bias? Recent studies in my own field have indicated that low representation of women in academic positions is not due to hiring bias. Attrition takes place much earlier in the process for not completely understood reasons.
The generalization "women are not into technology" provides, at best, a heuristic to determine whether the person in front of you is into technology or not.
It seems you are trying to make a sensational statement. If I simply said, "women are not highly represented in technical field A," it wouldn't carry the same subtext. Mark didn't actually say this, it's an inferred statement that may not accurately reflect his statements.
The point is that if we ceased to use that generalization, women would probably become no less interested in technology than men, because the social pressure ("girls are into dolls, not computers") would also cease (well, it would probably take time...). There *always* is subtext when you make that kind of assumption. Even "Women are not into technology because they prefer [some womenish activity]" carries rather heavy subtext ("because that's all they're good at").
Perhaps, but you're making a nature versus nurture argument and I don't think we'll settle that question here. There are, in fact, differences between male bodies and female bodies (and implicitly brains) that go beyond mere socialization.
The ribs thing is statistically provable and not socially-enforced. The tech thing is statistically provable (in all likelihood -- because, let's face it, right now you only need to look at the students in a CS classroom to see that CS is not perceived as a women's field, even among women), but it's a social, artificial distinction that serves no purpose. We're denying possibilities to women who try to enter the field.
I don't think we're denying anything to the non-fuzzy dogs or the guy with a missing rib.
Well this is an issue that CS needs to address internally. I fully believe in an egalitarian society. Success in your field should be determined by the quality of your work, not by some presumed metaphysical quality of an archetype.
However, I do not think that egalitarianism necessarily translates directly into equal representation of all classes in all fields. Should society have the right to dictate to me in which field I should take interest?
I would love for my daughter to take an interest in physics. However, I also have to let her develop naturally and simply offer my perspective about things. I can't just pin a career to her and assume it will stick. Ultimately, she has to find what interests her and pursue that. If she decides to pursue a field that has a larger proportion of women in it then who am I to stop her? How will I even know if nature or nurture led her to take interest in that? I do not even know this about myself.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 08:58 PM
and the reason Shuttleworth didn't apologize even when prompted to, might indicate he's convinced he didn't do/say anything wrong. I'd probably do the same.
You're focusing on a symptom - even if you can make it go away, you won't have cured the disease.
If indeed there are less women in IT, or in technology fields in general, and if this is because society teaches girls to take a liking to "womanly" professions/hobbies in stead of "manly" IT and stuff, stopping people to make jokes about it isn't going to help.
On the other hand, if there'd be a reasonable man/woman ratio in those fields, jokes like the one Shutlleworth made, or generalisations about 'woman are less into technology' would disappear, simply because they'd be meaningless.I'm focused in this case on one of many causes of the perpetuation of a false idea. If he is under the impression he's done nothing wrong, then it's high time his awareness of the problem be improved upon. In this way we slowly alter this aspect of the overall problem.
I think that's reasonable. Considering the hubbub that's come of what he said, I don't see why he can't clarify his words and apologize for any misunderstanding. Sure, it won't fly with some, but if something I said were being taken this wrongly I'd sure want people to know what I meant.
I think you'll find that a lot of men balk at accusations of sexism because it's a word that carries such heavy connotations, yet has such a broad and easily-met definition.
I mean, careless comments like this --offensive as some may find them-- are a far cry from the stereotypical womanizing CEO who fondles his secretary and refuses to promote women beyond middle management; or the stereotypical backwoods wife-beater.
But the word "sexist" encompasses them all, and who wants to be lumped in with such company because of a poor choice of words?
Then let those word choices be more careful.
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 08:59 PM
Or just "people".
Phfft.
There is no reason to believe that Shuttleworth intended his statement to be sexist. None at all.
Exactly.
But that doesn't stop it from being sexist. He just let his preconceptions shape his expression, and his uncritical choice led him to a sexist statement.
Heh? Anything anyone says, if taken out of context, can be twisted. For instance, you are now mystically and magically declaring that he has some sort of preconceptions that you find distasteful. You should consider a degree in Psychology, with an ability like that, you'd be able to cure most psychosis.
There is no use in demanding an apology from someone who is consciously/deliberately sexist (or any -ist). Lost cause that.
When intentionally or unintentionally taken out of context, then misconstrued, twisted, run through a set of preconceptions, and finally spit out as a "what I heard", there is not one thing any one could ever say, write, or think, that would not require them to apologize to the world. He owes no apology unless he feels he does. I would also point out that a demanded apologies value is highly suspect. Indeed if someone were to demand an apology from me on some misunderstanding, they'd get nothing; if however they took a little time to address me privately and civilly on the issue, I'd listen, and if I felt I had some how wronged the person, even unintentionally, I'd apologize.
However, someone like Shuttleworth is capable of recognizing his mistake, and his apology would mean something; specifically, it would help raise awareness of the fallacy of "women=lesser techies".
This is the first I have heard about "women=lesser techies", indeed I have 2 children, both are female; my eldest is an artist, and my youngest is a geek. I fully expect that my youngest will be showing the old man up by the time she is 15; she is 12 now.
Political correctness be damned. Removing false ideas from the field is the point.
Creating false ideas, assuming preconceptions about an individual without even having talked to them about it, baseless judgment, and pseudo martyrs be damned as well.
lykwydchykyn
October 2nd, 2009, 09:04 PM
Then let those word choices be more careful.
Hmm.... so much for mutual understanding.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 09:04 PM
Exactly.
Heh? Anything anyone says, if taken out of context, can be twisted. For instance, you are now mystically and magically declaring that he has some sort of preconceptions that you find distasteful. You should consider a degree in Psychology, with an ability like that, you'd be able to cure most psychosis.
When intentionally or unintentionally taken out of context, then misconstrued, twisted, run through a set of preconceptions, and finally spit out as a "what I heard", there is not one thing any one could ever say, write, or think, that would not require them to apologize to the world. He owes no apology unless he feels he does. I would also point out that a demanded apologies value is highly suspect. Indeed if someone were to demand an apology from me on some misunderstanding, they'd get nothing; if however they took a little time to address me privately and civilly on the issue, I'd listen, and if I felt I had some how wronged the person, even unintentionally, I'd apologize.
This is the first I have heard about "women=lesser techies", indeed I have 2 children, both are female; my eldest is an artist, and my youngest is a geek. I fully expect that my youngest will be showing the old man up by the time she is 15; she is 12 now.
Creating false ideas, assuming preconceptions about an individual without even having talked to them about it, baseless judgment, and pseudo martyrs be damned as well.
The old "out of context" defense. Ptui.
His words were clear, and what I took away from hearing them was defined in part by their context.
JillSwift
October 2nd, 2009, 09:11 PM
Y'know, I'm getting wayyyy to emotional about the content of this thread. Plus it's political and thus not really following the rules of this sub-forum (or the spirit, as it's not lighthearted).
So, I abandon the thread, before I does sumpin' shtoopid.
Hugs all around! =^_^=
alphaniner
October 2nd, 2009, 09:22 PM
It seems to me, the only thing the statement says about Shuttleworth is that he is a single heterosexual male. On the other hand, if he were a woman saying the same thing about men, nobody would be talking about this, precisely because it's a harmless statement. Shuttleworth is not the bad guy here but rather the victim of progressivist PC lunacy.
SomeGuyDude
October 2nd, 2009, 09:23 PM
http://imgur.com/0g8a5.gif
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 09:30 PM
*picture removed*
That is a valid concern; I despise that the female of the species is paid LESS to do the SAME work. It is one of the things I find most distasteful about our culture here in the U.S.
Equal pay for equal work should be an expectation that EVERYONE can count on. I worry about this issue quite a bit actually, especially when I wonder about the future of my 2 bright and beautiful daughters.
Mornedhel
October 2nd, 2009, 09:32 PM
How do you know what my feelings are toward people with different numbers of ribs? What makes you think that there's hiring bias? Recent studies in my own field have indicated that low representation of women in academic positions is not due to hiring bias. Attrition takes place much earlier in the process for not completely understood reasons.
I admit that I don't actually know whether there is hiring bias or not. There *is* low representation of women in several fields. This can be only for two reasons : women don't try to get in the field, or they try and are rejected. So either women don't perceive the field as being well-suited to themselves, or women are not perceived by those in the field to be well-suited to it, or a combination of both. It all comes down to stereotypes.
It seems you are trying to make a sensational statement. If I simply said, "women are not highly represented in technical field A," it wouldn't carry the same subtext. Mark didn't actually say this, it's an inferred statement that may not accurately reflect his statements.
Sorry. At this point I thought we were not necessarily talking about Shuttleworth's words only, but sexism in general. "Women are not highly represented in technical field A" does not carry any subtext, but it's hard to talk like that in your everyday life all the time.
Perhaps, but you're making a nature versus nurture argument and I don't think we'll settle that question here. There are, in fact, differences between male bodies and female bodies (and implicitly brains) that go beyond mere socialization.
Occam's razor : since the difference in wiring between male brains and female brains does not explain (*) the difference in their behavior, we'll have to assume it comes from their environment, which we can observe and understand reasonably well enough that we can identify factors that at least contribute to the differences in the behavior.
(*) Just to be perfectly clear on this : it means it could be the cause, and it could not be the cause -- last I heard no definite conclusions were drawn either way, same as the "innate vs acquired intelligence" debate.
I admit that the nature explanation is possible, but the nurture part at least certainly plays a role.
However, I do not think that egalitarianism necessarily translates directly into equal representation of all classes in all fields.
I think it does. If no field carries with it stereotypes such as "computer science is for boys", then the only differences should be physical : you should see less women in physical jobs, because they have a less powerful build, but you should see as many women as men in CS, for instance.
Should society have the right to dictate to me in which field I should take interest?
It shouldn't. That's exactly my point, although we probably use different meanings for "society". I think you mean that we should not try to enforce quotas, etc. My meaning is that society, in the environment sense, does dictate to you in which field you will take interest. Boys and girls are not given the same toys and not dressed in the same colors. Conditioning happens from birth onwards, and the previous generation imposes the same conditioning on the new one.
I would love for my daughter to take an interest in physics. However, I also have to let her develop naturally and simply offer my perspective about things. I can't just pin a career to her and assume it will stick. Ultimately, she has to find what interests her and pursue that. If she decides to pursue a field that has a larger proportion of women in it then who am I to stop her? How will I even know if nature or nurture led her to take interest in that? I do not even know this about myself.
If you wanted to let her develop naturally, free of external influences, you'd have to give her gender-neutral toys (or an equivalent distribution of boy-oriented toys and girl-oriented toys) and never let her see anyone outside of you. I assume you're doing your best to educate your daughter (supposing you actually have a daughter and she does not exist only for the sake of the argument, which is fine too). But you will never be able to let her develop free of social conditioning, which is good in most cases (developing a moral sense that's consistent with her environment's, etc.) but also forces her to learn bad behaviors on the side.
You can't know if her choices come from "nature or nurture", but you can be sure that "nurture" will have played its part, whereas "nature"'s role is undetermined and possibly non-existent. I for one won't claim that I was wired from birth to enter a CS career. My environment clearly helped some.
ikt
October 2nd, 2009, 09:49 PM
The old "out of context" defense. Ptui.
His words were clear, and what I took away from hearing them was defined in part by their context.
The old "I thought it was offensive, so it is." they used a similar sort of offense over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 09:51 PM
The old "I thought it was offensive, so it is." they used a similar sort of offense over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
Lol, so now when accused, men will have to run around with a:
"WARNING! May contain sexist statements." sticker on their foreheads :lolflag:
doas777
October 2nd, 2009, 09:55 PM
Lol, so now when accused, men will have to run around with a:
"WARNING! May contain sexist statements." sticker on their foreheads :lolflag:
but since both misogyny and feminism (or any other bias one way or the other) are sexist, everyone will have to were one!
Hyporeal
October 2nd, 2009, 10:19 PM
On the other hand, if he were a woman saying the same thing about men, nobody would be talking about this, precisely because it's a harmless statement.
That is almost certainly not true. For example, it was once said (by a woman) that men need extra attention and understanding because they aren't as emotionally engaged as women. This was correctly rejected as sexist. I think most of us here would agree with that judgment.
I personally find Shuttleworth's statement to be sexist. That doesn't make him a bad person. I still appreciate the man. But he said something sexist and we need to soberly acknowledge that.
aysiu
October 2nd, 2009, 10:38 PM
It's also important to recognize that equal is not the same.
If my right arm gets a deep cut in it, it's going to need attention in a way that would not only be inappropriate but may actually be harmful if also applied to my left arm.
The right arm may need surgery, stitches, localized anesthesia. The left arm needs nothing. It doesn't mean that the right arm is getting unfair treatment. It means the right arm is in a different situation from the left arm.
Likewise, if there were no stereotypes about women being technologically deficient, and there was equal representation of both major genders in FOSS, then Mark's statement would be fine. But we know that there are such stereotypes and such a disparity in representation.
The statement was not made in a cultural vacuum. No statement is.
Chemotherapy is a perfectly appropriate and possibly life-saving if not life-extended treatment to give to someone who has cancer. It is extremely inappropriate to give to someone who is cancer-free. You can't just say "Well, if she gets chemo, I want chemo" or "If chemo's bad for me, it should be bad for her, too." She has cancer. You don't. You're in different situations.
Likewise, within technology communities at large and in Linux communities specifically: Men are overrepresented Stereotypes about women being computer illiterate abound Many women have to "pass" (actively or by through inaction) as men in order to avoid harassment or being singled out So a statement in this cultural context about having to explain Ubuntu to girls serves to reinforce existing stereotypes and alienate many potential female Ubuntu advocates, whereas a statement about having to explain Ubuntu to boys would just be an example. Even that can be problematic, too, since it could be taken to mean that it's men teaching boys, and that women are not to be included at all. It would actually be better, in this particular case to either say you're explaining it to both boys and girls... or just leave a specific gender out altogether.
The other thing is: calling a remark sexist isn't making it a big deal. Some people seem to think that acknowledging Mark saying one sexist thing (or calling him out on it) makes him a bad person or a jerk or a criminal. It doesn't. We all in many ways perpetuate stereotypes and alienate people. Becoming perfect is a futile endeavor. But we should all be careful with our language and try our best to recognize that the impact of the words we utter can be different from the intent of our words, especially if we are not careful with our language.
There are times in which it's appropriate to mention women specifically. You can bring up a discussion about how to address under-representation and how to make our community more inclusive and woman-friendly. You can ask women about ways in which they may have been discouraged from pursuing technological pursuits. The truth is that many women overcome that discouragement because they have unusually thick skins. Good for them. Having a thick skin is nice, but why should a woman's skin have to be thicker than a man's to succeed in Linux communities (without hiding her gender on a text-based forum)?
For those who are genuinely interested in understanding and addressing sexism, I'd recommend you read Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing by Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher.
Or just read this HowTo:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/
By the way, I don't see what the problem with political correctness is:
I’m PC. So what? (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/im-pc-so-what-2/)
Regenweald
October 2nd, 2009, 10:46 PM
I don't see how it was sexist. It was a joke. Stop tripping over yourselves trying to find something to be offended over.
Fact - the majority of programmers/developers are male
Fact - Female developers/programmers work just as hard produce the same quality work
Fact - Male developers/ programmers may from time to time attempt to explain coding/Linux/OS concepts to their Girlfriend/wife/ significant other.
Fact - Female developers/ programmers may do the same
Speculation - this action is often time met with a blank stare.
Fact - everytime I try to talk FOSS/Tech to my girlfriend, she tries really hard for two minutes then my time is up. Ask her something about neuro-feedback and she's off at the races.
Mark made a joke. Rather than waste time and energy over nothing, why not go to the source ? Ask the female canonical employees if the think they work in a sexist environment, if they feel treated differently, seeing as they interact with the man on a daily basis.
aysiu
October 2nd, 2009, 10:47 PM
Mark made a joke. I hope he doesn't quit his day job to be a stand-up comedian. His joke wasn't funny.
If I want laughs, I'll watch Eddie Izzard.
Methuselah
October 2nd, 2009, 10:53 PM
But we should all be careful with our language and try our best to recognize that the impact of the words we utter can be different from the intent of our words, especially if we are not careful with our language
This is a key point.
I can imagine a female geek speaking about not having to explain to guys (she dates) what she does since the 'coolness' is now so self-evident.
This is the angle I believe Mr. Shuttleworth was taking in a sort of off-the-cuff way.
However, people who have had true bitter experiences of sexism in the IT world might be taken aback by those words.
A lot depends on both the hearer and the speaker.
So in my view Mr. Shuttleworth's words could be considered sexist by some but that does not mean that they are.
He did not say: "Women are no good with computers" but his words could be construed that way.
Is this enough of a basis form him to comment on it and even apologize for any offence taken?
Indeed, but I still see this as a bit of hearing what one is listening for.
koenn
October 2nd, 2009, 10:56 PM
I hope he doesn't quit his day job to be a stand-up comedian. His joke wasn't funny.
it worked for his audience ...
aysiu
October 2nd, 2009, 10:58 PM
A lot depends on both the hearer and the speaker.
So in my view Mr. Shuttleworth's words could be considered sexist by some but that does not mean that they are.
He did not say: "Women are no good with computers" but his words could be construed that way.
Is this enough of a basis form him to comment on it and even apologize for any offence taken?
Indeed, but I still see this as a bit of hearing what one is listening for. If he doesn't apologize, at least he could acknowledge that it may not have been the best choice of words, and say he'll try to be careful to use inclusive language in the future or something.
It's not a big deal. It's still a deal, though.
He's not killing small children or raping anyone. I don't think he should go to prison. How hard is it to just make a note that as a public figure you have to watch your language a bit more than other people (most people talk to only small groups of people of similar backgrounds)?
I have to say I'm far more disappointed in some of the comments I've read in threads about this than I am about Mark's original statement. This idea that people can say whatever they want and others who are offended are being "too sensitive" really pisses me off. If this is the dominant feeling here on the Ubuntu Forums, maybe it's time for me to retire. Maybe this isn't where I belong, and Ubuntu isn't "humanity toward others" but "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, and grow a thicker skin."
Regenweald
October 2nd, 2009, 11:01 PM
I hope he doesn't quit his day job to be a stand-up comedian. His joke wasn't funny.
If I want laughs, I'll watch Eddie Izzard.
I should have said: 'Mark made a joke based on real world experience' I'm sorry aysiu, In 26 years of life I have interacted with 2 women who I would consider PC enthusiasts, one was more advanced than myself, one I met last year. On the other hand I have met countless women who fall into the so called stereotype. The only time i get to interact with women who share my interest as it pertains to tech is in these forums and even though some never allude to their physical orientation, partly because it really does not matter in here, I would wager that women are still in the minority in here.
Attitudes are attitudes, If you let it get to you that is your prerogative but i have yet to see how someone can tell the difference between code written by a woman and by a man and then proceed to treat the woman's code differently.
aysiu
October 2nd, 2009, 11:08 PM
I should have said: 'Mark made a joke based on real world experience' I'm sorry aysiu, In 26 years of life I have interacted with 2 women who I would consider PC enthusiasts, one was more advanced than myself, one I met last year. On the other hand I have met countless women who fall into the so called stereotype. The only time i get to interact with women who share my interest as it pertains to tech is in these forums and even though some never allude to their physical orientation, partly because it really does not matter in here, I would wager that women are still in the minority in here.
Attitudes are attitudes, If you let it get to you that is your prerogative but i have yet to see how someone can tell the difference between code written by a woman and by a man and then proceed to treat the woman's code differently.
And those attitudes will get perpetuated the more unfunny jokes like this that Mark and others in the Ubuntu community keep making.
I guess the question is: What matters more to Mark? Getting a sexist chuckle out of reinforcing stereotypes? Or actually making women developers feel as if they're part of the community and acknowledging that there are just as many tech-clueless men out there as there are tech-clueless women?
Chronon
October 2nd, 2009, 11:14 PM
I admit that I don't actually know whether there is hiring bias or not. There *is* low representation of women in several fields. This can be only for two reasons : women don't try to get in the field, or they try and are rejected. So either women don't perceive the field as being well-suited to themselves, or women are not perceived by those in the field to be well-suited to it, or a combination of both. It all comes down to stereotypes.
Saying that it all comes down to stereotypes doesn't say much, IMO. Any discussion about "women" involves stereotypes. You need to dig down into whether there's discrimination based on a person's gender or not. I think there's some self limiting in certain fields because of a lack of female role models. This can hopefully fix itself eventually, as females diffuse in and make meaningful contributions.
Sorry. At this point I thought we were not necessarily talking about Shuttleworth's words only, but sexism in general. "Women are not highly represented in technical field A" does not carry any subtext, but it's hard to talk like that in your everyday life all the time.
Yes, informal language leads to misunderstandings like this. People tend to naturally find a level of informal speech depending on their conversation partners/audience. As we see, this can pose problems in public settings.
Occam's razor : since the difference in wiring between male brains and female brains does not explain (*) the difference in their behavior, we'll have to assume it comes from their environment, which we can observe and understand reasonably well enough that we can identify factors that at least contribute to the differences in the behavior.
(*) Just to be perfectly clear on this : it means it could be the cause, and it could not be the cause -- last I heard no definite conclusions were drawn either way, same as the "innate vs acquired intelligence" debate.
The whole nature versus nurture debate gets confused because they talk about things in wholly different frames of reference. It's not clear to me how Occam's razor resolves anything here. Nature is certainly necessary in any explanation. Nurture (or socialization) is also part of most explanations. I understand Occam's razor as a decision making device. When considering two models with varying numbers of entities, the one involving fewer entities (constructs) should be preferred. My own observations lead me to believe that both are important components in human development. Of course, it is also possible to argue that nature is deterministic and all choice is illusory. This makes nature the only determining factor, but I don't really wish to argue this here.
I think it does. If no field carries with it stereotypes such as "computer science is for boys", then the only differences should be physical : you should see less women in physical jobs, because they have a less powerful build, but you should see as many women as men in CS, for instance.
You seem to make an artificial distinction between psychology and physiology. The brain is a physical organ and our psychology is both determined by and determines the biochemical state in our bodies. Females and males do tend to have different hormone levels and have different neurological structures. This at least leaves open the possibility that innate (though not immutable or ubiquitous) preferences and differences in psychology can result. Having read ahead, I think this point is crucial to our difference in other respects.
I think that women do think differently from men (in general). Thinking back, I feel like I understood girls pretty well until about puberty. At that point, huge hormonal changes invade our bodies and I think most people would agree that each individual winds up different both physically and psychologically.
Point being, it isn't really known in detail how much those chemicals affect a given individual. Additionally, the effect of society is different for each person and is not a monolithic agent (neither is nature). Given this, I don't feel it's safe to assume that without social cues we would all end up with precisely the same set of preferences. My consciousness still arises (in my view) out of an individual biochemical system that's connected to an individual set of I/O streams. I do not believe that society could make us all the same, even if it set out to do so.
You can't know if her choices come from "nature or nurture", but you can be sure that "nurture" will have played its part, whereas "nature"'s role is undetermined and possibly non-existent. I for one won't claim that I was wired from birth to enter a CS career. My environment clearly helped some.
You seem to be saying that while nature's effect is unknown, we can at least assume that nurture plays a role in human development. That's fair enough. However, obvious differences of opinion can arise in what should be done about that. I think different fields should certainly try to make contact with youngsters and educate them a bit about what they are all about. Information is a resource and unbiased information should be accessible so that people can make informed decisions. If every reasonable precaution is taken to provide boys and girls with the same information about the same career options and they still gravitate toward certain fields then I don't think much can or should be done about that.
koenn
October 2nd, 2009, 11:19 PM
I have to say I'm far more disappointed in some of the comments I've read in threads about this than I am about Mark's original statement. This idea that people can say whatever they want and others who are offended are being "too sensitive" really pisses me off.
Most of the people that had a problem with Mark's statement, never heard or read it but went by a wrong (as in doctored, twisted) report of what he said. That pisses me off.
And there was also a substantial amount of "hearing what you're listening for", as Metusaleh put it.
There's been a number of these far-fetched attemtps to "prove" there's sexism in FOSS over the past couple of weeks, but most of them lack substance. This seems to be just another one of those : it's not about thicker skin, it's about not making a fuss over non-events.
Regenweald
October 2nd, 2009, 11:26 PM
And those attitudes will get perpetuated the more unfunny jokes like this that Mark and others in the Ubuntu community keep making.
I guess the question is: What matters more to Mark? Getting a sexist chuckle out of reinforcing stereotypes? Or actually making women developers feel as if they're part of the community and acknowledging that there are just as many tech-clueless men out there as there are tech-clueless women?
This is where your thought pattern and mine part, female or male, I call people that write code 'Developers' I call women who share my pc interests ' PC enthusiasts' considering that a few of the kernel devs at canonical are women, and many main tree devs around the world also, I don't think that the statement was aimed at them or 'aimed' at anyone in fact. Like the joke or not, it does not change the fact that many of us in here have been in that exact situation joked about. Mark said it from the male point of view.
koshatnik
October 2nd, 2009, 11:29 PM
These few girls around here need major reality check. 1 female in whole KDE team and 1 in the Gnome team. Overall 1,5% in FOSS. And after that Mark DARE to say that girl are difficult to understand linux. Oh, how rude of him!
Maybe the low numbers of females involved in tech in general is down to, err, sexism? :)
starcannon
October 2nd, 2009, 11:38 PM
Maybe the low numbers of females involved in tech in general is down to, err, sexism? :)
Probably; lack of interest, or lack of qualified individuals of a particular type, likely has nothing to do with it at all.
Mornedhel
October 2nd, 2009, 11:39 PM
There's a lot in your post that I wish I could comment on, but to be perfectly frank it's past midnight over here and I'm getting quite sleepy, so I'm just going to comment on the last paragraph. By tomorrow the thread will probably have drifted enough that it will be offtopic to continue this particular conversation, however.
I think different fields should certainly try to make contact with youngsters and educate them a bit about what they are all about. Information is a resource and unbiased information should be accessible so that people can make informed decisions. If every reasonable precaution is taken to provide boys and girls with the same information about the same career options and they still gravitate toward certain fields then I don't think much can or should be done about that.
We aren't, fortunately, purely logical entities (or we'd be very predictable, boring, and selfish, according to game theory). Unfortunately, it means that even if the information you're given is accurate and unbiased, it will have to go through filters somewhere in your mind between the IO layer and whatever part comes up with decisions. We have no way of interpreting data other than through our previous experience, the rules and heuristics we've obtained through education and generally growing up. The point should be to make this experience as fair and devoid of harmful generalizations as possible.
Take an extreme example : women in very sexist societies are not considered apt to do jobs they obviously perform well in other, more moderate societies. In those societies, not only do men prevent them from accessing those fields, women believe themselves incapable of performing well, or believe that it's not their place. If your nature hypothesis still holds in that case, it means that the wiring is very different among women of distinct societies, which is doubtful.
Chronon
October 3rd, 2009, 12:08 AM
There's a lot in your post that I wish I could comment on, but to be perfectly frank it's past midnight over here and I'm getting quite sleepy, so I'm just going to comment on the last paragraph. By tomorrow the thread will probably have drifted enough that it will be offtopic to continue this particular conversation, however.
We aren't, fortunately, purely logical entities (or we'd be very predictable, boring, and selfish, according to game theory).
I understand. I have found our discussion so far stimulating, so thanks.
I just want to interject a small point here. Selfishness does not contradict cooperation. The tit-for-tat strategy is the most successful strategy for cascaded prisoner's dilemmas and is considered by some to be a model for the appearance of cooperation in animals. Anyway, I agree that we aren't perfectly logical and rational.
Unfortunately, it means that even if the information you're given is accurate and unbiased, it will have to go through filters somewhere in your mind between the IO layer and whatever part comes up with decisions. We have no way of interpreting data other than through our previous experience, the rules and heuristics we've obtained through education and generally growing up. The point should be to make this experience as fair and devoid of harmful generalizations as possible.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Take an extreme example : women in very sexist societies are not considered apt to do jobs they obviously perform well in other, more moderate societies. In those societies, not only do men prevent them from accessing those fields, women believe themselves incapable of performing well, or believe that it's not their place. If your nature hypothesis still holds in that case, it means that the wiring is very different among women of distinct societies, which is doubtful.
It seems you are stretching the nature element further than I intended. Obviously, culture and society imposes additional constraints not imposed by nature itself. I was only saying that no matter how much you try to tweak the set of ideas contained in a given culture there's no guarantee that population parity will be reached in all fields, nor that preferences and behavior will be or should be expected to be the same between each person, regardless of gender.
The argument that populations of each gender should be equal in each field rests on an assumption -- that there are no innate behavioral differences between men and women. I am not saying that there are -- I am only saying that if these exist then modifying culture has slim chance of achieving population parity in every field.
I wish for an egalitarian society where any person can enter the field of their choosing and excel according to their merits. It is not clear to me that more should be done than making opportunity available to everyone.
Anyway, I will see you around, if not in this topic.
SunnyRabbiera
October 3rd, 2009, 12:08 AM
Well talking linux at the dinner table can make a boring conversation.
aysiu
October 3rd, 2009, 12:45 AM
Most of the people that had a problem with Mark's statement, never heard or read it but went by a wrong (as in doctored, twisted) report of what he said. That pisses me off. And most of the people defending it as "just a joke" also never heard or read it and just assumed that others were being oversensitive.
And there was also a substantial amount of "hearing what you're listening for", as Metusaleh put it. It goes both ways. You can't dismiss every allegation of sexist remarks as being "hearing what you're listening for" unless you decide you're listening for it to be not sexist.
There's been a number of these far-fetched attemtps to "prove" there's sexism in FOSS over the past couple of weeks, but most of them lack substance. There have been a number of these far-fetched attempts to "prove" that people are overreacting to sexism in FOSS over the past couple of decades, but most of them lack substance.
This seems to be just another one of those : it's not about thicker skin, it's about not making a fuss over non-events. The fuss isn't about Mark's comment, it's about him not apologizing for it and for others coming to his defense unnecessarily.
jrusso2
October 3rd, 2009, 01:12 AM
If he doesn't apologize, at least he could acknowledge that it may not have been the best choice of words, and say he'll try to be careful to use inclusive language in the future or something.
It's not a big deal. It's still a deal, though.
He's not killing small children or raping anyone. I don't think he should go to prison. How hard is it to just make a note that as a public figure you have to watch your language a bit more than other people (most people talk to only small groups of people of similar backgrounds)?
I have to say I'm far more disappointed in some of the comments I've read in threads about this than I am about Mark's original statement. This idea that people can say whatever they want and others who are offended are being "too sensitive" really pisses me off. If this is the dominant feeling here on the Ubuntu Forums, maybe it's time for me to retire. Maybe this isn't where I belong, and Ubuntu isn't "humanity toward others" but "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, and grow a thicker skin."
Well stated. I guess thats what really surprised me about this whole thread.
Frak
October 3rd, 2009, 01:33 AM
If he doesn't apologize, at least he could acknowledge that it may not have been the best choice of words, and say he'll try to be careful to use inclusive language in the future or something.
Or people could just let go of it. This whole "OMG, HE HURTED MAI FEELINS" thing is kinda lame. He's a person, he made a mistake, why should we make him kneel to us and apologize to us. Why should we have to keep pressing the issue on him, when we could all just say "Oh, it was a mistake, he'll do better next time".
jonian_g
October 3rd, 2009, 02:34 AM
See what you said here? It's wrong.
The attitude you espoused in the first sentence is the reason for the "more important things".
Lesser interest among women in things "technical" is a result of social and community expectations more than it is the result of phenotypes and neurological predisposition.
If you want to play with words, keep playing.
Girls don't show the same interest in football (soccer). When people generalise (like I did), they do it because that is a fact for the majority.
So, if I said 65% of girls don't show interest in technology, then it wouldn't be sexist?
And since when the interest in technology shows superiority and greater intelligence?
Tipped OuT
October 3rd, 2009, 02:36 AM
if you want to play with words, keep playing.
Girls don't show the same interest in football (soccer). When people generalise (like i did), they do it because that is a fact for the majority.
So, if i said 65% of girls don't show interest in technology, then it wouldn't be sexist?
And since when the interest in technology shows superiority and greater intelligence?
+1
moster
October 3rd, 2009, 03:34 AM
This "topic" can be resumed to this. Mark said what he said and THEN like 3 girls from 800 000 people here feel insulted and say "I know linux and I demand an apology!"
Now, I do not see that kind of attitude when somebody say and it is quite often said that females are "more beautiful gender". No objection from YOU then. It is true, but that is by far less true in comparison what Mark said.
starcannon
October 3rd, 2009, 05:38 AM
But we should all be careful with our language and try our best to recognize that the impact of the words we utter can be different from the intent of our words, especially if we are not careful with our language
No, no, no!
If I have something to say, I need the freedom to say it. If I want to express myself, or just be me I need the freedom of expression to do so.
What people should be careful of is thought patterns; it is currently politically, or socially(more realistic) acceptable to speak in pattern X. If somehow I inadvertently speak outside of pattern X, and am perceived as speaking in pattern Y, I am now at the least some sort of low brow man that I must apologize for having the audacity of speaking my mind? And then I am judged a sexist/misogynist if I do not acknowledge or apologize? No, he said what he said, when taken in context he made no sexist statement, and outside of internalizing the fact that he evidently dates non tech savvy women, there is no reason too make this fuss.
Unless Mark Shuttleworth makes a statement to the effect that he meant what he said globally and not locally, I do not believe he made a sexist statement, nor do I believe he has sexist preconceptions.
With all the REAL problems that FOSS has to deal with, I can not believe that we are even hung up on this non sequitur; truly ridiculous.
etnlIcarus
October 3rd, 2009, 06:55 AM
This was pretty much the only thing I felt like contributing, to what is becoming a meandering, nebulous philosophical debate:
Perhaps, but you're making a nature versus nurture argument and I don't think we'll settle that question here. There are, in fact, differences between male bodies and female bodies (and implicitly brains) that go beyond mere socialization.
There appeared to be the implication by some people that 'gender is only genital-deep', which, if I'm interpreting those comments correctly, only does a disservice to this issue. There are gender-typical behaviours observed, not just cross-culturally, but cross-species. There's also noted neurological differences between the male-typical and female-typical brains (proportion of white matter, hemispherical separation, just off the top of my head). Conclusions you can draw about the effect these difference have, are pretty limited (especially in the context of this discussion) but there are differences and it's not unreasonable, if a little opportunistic, to suggest that these differences play a role in determining a person's inclinations and aptitudes. This also applies to men in female-dominated professions, as well.
billdotson
October 3rd, 2009, 07:28 AM
Not to be sexist but I have only known 3 girls in my entire life that could be considered "tech-savvy", let alone have any urge to learn about it. I do not know why it is. Somehow our culture has associated scientific fields and technology with "uncool" geeks. Most women I know are in an exercise related field, teaching, medical care or business.
In my CS department there are probably a total of 15 girls. There are more then 15 guys in my discrete math class alone.
Chronon
October 3rd, 2009, 07:29 AM
This was pretty much the only thing I felt like contributing, to what is becoming a meandering, nebulous philosophical debate:
There appeared to be the implication by some people that 'gender is only genital-deep', which, if I'm interpreting those comments correctly, only does a disservice to this issue. There are gender-typical behaviours observed, not just cross-culturally, but cross-species. There's also noted neurological differences between the male-typical and female-typical brains (proportion of white matter, hemispherical separation, just off the top of my head). Conclusions you can draw about the effect these difference have, are pretty limited (especially in the context of this discussion) but there are differences and it's not unreasonable, if a little opportunistic, to suggest that these differences play a role in determining a person's inclinations and aptitudes. This also applies to men in female-dominated professions, as well.
Thank you. Of course I don't mean to imply that knowledge of neurological structure translates directly into knowledge of psychological traits (though I personally don't doubt that they are linked). We don't have a map that tells us how to translate the one into the other.
Anyway, you bring up a good point: Observing that gender linked traits are widespread in nature is probably enough to doubt the premise that men and women (as populations) are identical sans social cues (i.e. that it's only genital deep, as you put it).
Elfy
October 3rd, 2009, 07:30 AM
I'm closing this for 24 hours - it is a circular argument that is going nowhere.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.