Subject:
Re: Review needed of 'Encourage Women in Linux' HOWTO
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
8 Dec 2003 00:03:59 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031207161348.023c5c18@mail.simpaticus.com>
Everyone kindly forgive me for chiming in this late, but I have been away
from my email for a few days. I'll include most of my comments in the
response to Jutta. As someone else said, I'll apologize in advance for
being long-winded but I want to avoid being misunderstood. And should
anyone wonder, I did take the time to read the entire HOWTO at www.tldp.org
before writing this.
At 14:42 12/7/2003, Jutta Wrage wrote:
>Okay, we can do as if everything is okay. But nothin would have changed,
>if we had done so until now, and ignoring will not change anything in the
>future.
Acting as if sexism does not exist is foolish and wrong; there is
definitely sexism in this world today. It should not be ignored, it should
be attacked and rejected. People with sexist views, especially those who
publicly proselytize those views and act on them, should be criticized,
ridiculed if warranted, and punished if necessary. Period, end of story.
Hopefully everyone now understands how I feel: no type or amount of
discrimination is ever correct or allowed.
Having said that, too many times in this world a wrong is committed to
answer another wrong, and it will never be appropriate to answer invalid
and misleading generalizations such as "women are not as smart as men" with
other, different, but also just-as-sweeping generalizations. It is
perfectly possible to be "reverse sexist" while trying to fight sexism.
While Val Henson's work is one of the best-written HOWTO's I have ever read
(in its use of the English language, in clarity, coherence, and effective
communication) and while it is generally intelligent, well-thought-out, and
attempting to be as fair as possible, I'll admit there were times I got
overwhelmed by "men do this..." and "women do that..." which are certainly
true sometimes but not all the time.
Men and women (and blacks and rednecks and name-your-ethnic-group) should
see each other as individuals, recognizing each one's unique contributions,
value, strengths, and weaknesses. Val feels (in a recent message to this
list) that "...Until sexism is gone, I need to make sweeping
generalizations..." and I disagree. I think that those sweeping
generalizations are going to be just as wrong as the ones you are fighting,
and that they SHOULD NOT be made. Why is it necessary to say "men tend to
think women are stupid" which implies a majority of men or a majority of
the time and is clearly an incorrect and insulting exaggeration? Why not
say something true, like talking about "...those men who think women are
stupid"?
Some women ARE stupid. Some women ARE technically-inept. Those things are
true about some women, but the same things are true about some men... some
men are stupid, and some men are technically-inept. It is the
*generalization* that is wrong and causes harm. I would strongly suggest
that major improvement in the HOWTO can be achieved (at least as far as its
effectiveness in not alienating part of its audience) by simply changing
many of the "men do"/"men say"/"when you..." phrases which assume the man
reading this _does_ do those things.
While I have heard men make derogatory comments about women, I have also
heard "you're a guy, you wouldn't understand" too often to count. I have
seen women treated as though they were inferior, and I have been the
subject of some abuse by women WHO ACTED AS THOUGH ALL MEN ARE SEXIST.
Again, it is the generalization that is wrong. Val, unfortunately in my
view, has chosen to generalize as a form of illustration and it does reduce
the quality of the document. This HOWTO could be more valuable if it were
more balanced and less negative about "men". Especially if it spoke less
about "men" having all these faults, as though we were all alike and all
had the same faults.
As a citizen of Guatemala, a Spanish speaker, and a dark-haired,
fair-skinned male with an interest in computers, guns, airplanes, and
business, I can assure you I have also been on the receiving end of my fair
share of idiocies, slurs, ignorance, and hostility. Including "do you live
in trees", "do you have peanut butter", and "did you find clothes very hard
to get used to", never mind the more direct "you spics are all macho
women-beaters anyway" and "I bet you know how to hijack this plane, huh";
and yes, those are all specific, real, relatively recent examples from both
male and female adults in the United States.
Allow me to suggest a change for the very first sentence in the "1.1.
Audience" section. Currently it reads:
"This document is intended mainly for the male Linux enthusiast
who would like to see more women involved in Linux."
While I very firmly and actively fit that description, I do not is truly
directed at me (or if it is, then we're back to the sweeping
generalizations and insulting remarks bit). That sentence would be much
truer if it read:
"This document is intended mainly for the male Linux enthusiast
who would like to see more women involved in Linux, worries
that his behavior may be hurting rather than helping and seeks
pointers on what to change."
---
On another issue, I love the concept of an "Encouraging Women in Linux
HOWTO". I'd be equally thrilled with an "Encouraging Your_Ethnic_Group_Here
in Linux HOWTO" or an "Encouraging Diversity in Linux HOWTO"; however, the
fact that those documents do not exist is no fault of Val's nor does it
reflect badly on her document. All it means is that no one has taken the
time and effort to write those documents whereas she cared enough to write
one for women. Let us review her work on its own merits... the fact that it
is focused on one group is irrelevant and does not detract from its value
in any way.
Simple summary: beautifully written document, clearly a highly-intelligent,
reasonable, and careful author, much to be praised. Good attempt at
balance, but makes too many generalizations and risks alienating a good
chunk of its audience who _isn't_ guilty of any of those sins. Even the "I
don't do that" section reads like "are you sure?" Some changes would make
it orders of magnitude better.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
