discuss: Review needed of 'Encourage Women in Linux' HOWTO
Subject:
Re: Review needed of 'Encourage Women in Linux' HOWTO
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
9 Dec 2003 14:22:03 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031209081123.025bc220@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 00:26 12/9/2003, Rick Moen wrote:
>The reason I went through that rather tedious exercise in cut-and-paste
>was to collect in one spot [...] any instances of accusing all males of
>misbehaviour merely on account of chromosonal endowment.
>
>And... Rodolfo? I still can't find any. Not a one. Every single
>example, quoted above from Henson's text, either is obviously intended
>to be a statement of generality or is actually _explicitly_ qualified
>with words like "most", "often", "many", "more likely", "generally",
>"usually", "tends", and "frequently".
We appear to be analyzing different things. I agree that those statements
are all general, and that _some_ are qualified. I have no beef with your
/specific/ assertion.
What bothers me, and I think reduced the value of an otherwise excellent
document, is that some of those generalizations are false, some those
generalizations are unfair, and most of those generalizations are things
that should never be generalized anyway... /especially/ when dealing with a
subject this sensitive where you are trying to effect change in the basic
social paradigms of individuals.
>My point? Please forgive a little bluntness (which at least I'm not
>pointing at any specific individual -- and certainly not at you):
>Critiques that aren't even getting that part right are probably pretty
>dubious overall. Sadly, that calls into question about 3/4, in this
>case.
I'd appreciate your reading of my critiques made a couple of nights ago. As
mentioned, I was pointing out en entirely different problem and I'd like to
see what you think about the /quality/ of the generalizations and the
/appropriateness/ of the generalizations as noted in my earlier message.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
