Subject:
Re: Review needed of 'Encourage Women in Linux' HOWTO
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
10 Dec 2003 07:58:56 -0000
Message-Id: <20031210075855.GH9850@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rodolfo J. Paiz ####@####.####
> 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.
[...]
> I'd appreciate your reading of my critiques made a couple of nights
> ago.
Per your request.
[Concerning two odd sentences in section 1.1 about "Audience":]
> Critique: This is the CENTRAL paradox? The people most anxious for
> more women in Linux are ALL looking for "a better chance of finding a
> girlfriend"?
I see some problems in the claim, but perhaps not the same you do. I'll
try to follow my own advice, in this area, and be specific. The
sentences make two claims in succession:
o The people most anxious [sic] (Henson means eager[1]) for more women
in Linux tend to be those who drive them away (by behaving like jerks).
o Frequently, the men who want more women in Linux are just hoping for a
better shot at having a girlfriend.
The latter is an inference, one that's a bit cynical and may or may not
be true. It may be that the bulk of those guys are just poorly
socialised and awkward around women. It's probably not an easily
answerable question.
But, more fundamentally, I think psychoanalysing people who misbehave
is unlikely to be useful, and undermines the primary message by serving
as flamebait.
> Insulting, demeaning, and belittling.
Realistically: Insulting, demeaning, and belittling of whom? The
passage speaks disparagingly of men who discourage women through
subjecting them to msibehaviour. The author made no complaint about
Rodolfo Paiz, about Rick Moen, or about men in the general case.
> I have personally taught command-line usage to at least four
> females... gee, I didn't realize I was just fishing for a date!
And the author did not speak of you. She did not say you were likely to
be among those who do such things, strictly on account of being male.
What she did was infer that conclusion about some sizeable fraction of
the men whose misbehaviour within the Linux community discourages
women's participation.
Therefore, you logically should not conclude you're even being referred
to, unless you misbehave in the manner described. I'm not sure whether
men who _do_ fit that description should feel insulted, demeaned, and
belittled -- nor am I sure their sensibilities matter much. ;->
In the spirit of helpfulness, the way I might rephrase that passage (if
it were up to me) is as follows: "The central irony of women and Linux
is that the people most anxious for more women in Linux are often
also those most likely to accidentally drive them away." I would lose
that slam at guys sabotaging their odds of picking up dates, as
rhetorically weakening the piece by distracting from the main point.
[Concerning women feeling less confident:]
> I disagree that men cause it with inappropriate behavior
The problem is that you're disagreeing with a claim the author did not
make. She cited women tending to be less confident as a fact; she
didn't say men cause it (with inappropriate behaviour or anything else).
To back up for just a minute, HOWTO section 2.x is a recitation of nine
specific answers to "Why are there so few women in Linux?", and the item
you're commenting on, section 2.1, is the first of those. The section
is only two paragraphs long: Nowhwere does it say "men cause" the
observed (general) fact in question. Check for yourself.
[Concerning women having fewer opportunities for friendship or mentoring:]
> [...] the point is that I have seldom seen a woman fail to get any
> help she needs....
But the author's making a statistical claim that the observed pattern is
otherwise. Not only is she summarising the claim in this particular of
other women in the community who've studied the problem (and spoke with
Henson at the OLS LinuxChix BOF), but also the claim is plausible.
> If Val had said, "people tend to mentor and become friends with those
> of their same gender" it would have been less of a loaded phrasing.
Grammarian alert: The concept of gender is (probably) not applicable,
here. Henson makes this same (currently fashonable) error, and it would
be nice not to see commentators do likewise. "Gender" refers to
socialisation related to which sex you are, i.e., societal traits of
masculinity and femininity. The concept of one's sex refers to the
biological distinction, and is what Henson is referring to.
That is, I believe Henson is speaking of behaviour towards _female_
members of the Linux community, not towards those taught to cross
their legs thigh-over-thigh instead of ankle-on-opposite-kneecap, nor
towards those raised to curtsey rather than bow.
Correcting the wording, then, you would say ""people tend to mentor and
become friends with those of the same sex". But that is actually a much
_broader_ and more fuzzy statement than what Henson wrote, the central
claim of which was the quite plausible and unexceptional "However, for
various reasons, men usually tend to mentor and become friends with
other men."
Just to make sure I'm not missing your objection:
> I would not expect any PERSON to leave a field just because he or she
> has few members of his or her own gender with which to socialize.
The people whose feedback Henson is summarising say they do. Is it
wrong for her to repeat this? You call it "loaded". Ideologically
loaded? I can't see it. Emotionally loaded? I can't see why it should
be.
[Claim that male classmates often assume their female counterparts leave
the field because they "just aren't good enough."]
> Kindly show any kind of factual basis of any kind for "men often
> assume women leave because they can't cut it."
Why is this so difficult to believe? If you've never worked at a
company where people who quit or were laid off got backstabbed as
"losers" -- or gone to a competitive university where the same was
widely assumed of those dropping out of programs, then you're luckier
than I am.
> it's a generalization...
Yes, a not-very-broad one, stated using the word "often". That is, it's
implied to occur often enough to not just be a fluke, but there's no
implication of it occurring in most cases.
> ...harmful to (I would say) pretty much everyone involved....
How so? Please cite the harm in citing an assumption that would be
quite plausibly held by many male university students, under those
circumstances.
["Societal pressure for women to avoid computing begins at an extremely
early age."]
And you simply state that you deny that this is "a prevalent social more
throughout the world". But Henson points to Spertus's, and also
Margolis and Fisher's, detailed description of that conditioning.
And, again, I just can't help finding Henson's pretty mild,
matter-of-fact reference to "societal pressure for women to avoid
computing" pretty plausible.
["every time you raised your voice, an adult told you to quiet down,
while the boy next to you continued to shriek".]
> I don't actually have to critique this sentence, do I?
It's pretty acid. I recognise in it the distinctively scathing tone of
a fellow Scandinavian. ;-> But the central truth that Henson is
trying to dramatise is that girls are most often encouraged to be quiet
and demure, while boys are taught that it's good to be assertive. (Ever
notice the way the concept of "demure" is always XX and never XY?)
The bit you elided (and I'm not saying this was obfuscation, Rodolfo!)
was in Henson's following sentence, where she reached her point in that:
"This is a handicap later on in life, when being loud and insistent is
the only way to get your opinion heard--for example, on the linux-kernel
mailing list."
Admittedly, Henson's focus wanders a bit from the front end of that
paragraph to the back, but her point in painting that word-picture is
clear.
["When a woman is depicted as a programmer, often more screen time is
spent admiring her shapely body and kissable lips than demonstrating her
competence as a programmer."]
> Carrie-Ann Moss in "The Matrix".
Well, "Reloaded", anyway. Her finding that ssh exploit using a future
version of Fyodor's nmap was cool. But I digress.
> And have you seen the TV series "Birds of Prey"?
No, it wasn't worth missing "The West Wing". ;->
> Sandra Bullock in "The Net"
Just a victim for most of the movie's length. The protagonist at least
works with computers, and is claimed to be a system analyst, but
actually seems to work as a QA drone. I don't remember her response to
her plight being particularly technical: Didn't she just
social-engineer her way into an office, grab some files, and e-mail them
to the FBI?
> Yancey Butler
Sarah Pezzini was no computer geek. I don't think she was ever even
shown at a keyboard.
> Peta Wilson in "La Femme Nikita"?
Fabulously acted, and an undeservedly obscure, knockout series, but
"Nikita" was an assassin and secret agent. She called on teenage male
computer nerd Berkof when needs any real computer work was required.
> Jennifer Garner
A downmarket Peta Wilson. Substitute Marshall for Berkof, as the male
computer nerd in the corresponding role.
Now, this is the entertainment industry; nobody expects frumpy heroines,
but you have pretty much completely ignored Henson's point, which is
that the women are almost never portrayed as programmers, and, if they
are, typically significantly less screen time is lavished on that than
on her qualities as an object of sexual attraction.
And if Sydney Bristow and Trinity are supposed to be examples of
computer programmers who aren't have more screen time sexualised than
coding, then we have a reality disconnect.
[Life-work balance more important to women]
> Men couldn't care less about their families, right?
> Their community, their God, their health, the people they love.
This basically ignores Henson's point.
You say this generalisation "has no value whatsoever" because:
> ...both sexes are equally able to obsess and equally able to value all
> parts of their lives.
Ignores the fact that the allegation is that one sex has a statistically
greater _tendency_ to obsess on particular topics and not lead a
balanced life. Actually, for purposes of Henson's HOWTO, it would
suffice for male _computerists_ to show those traits statistically more
than do female computerists. I'm not sure that's true, but it's
plausible.
And:
> I find that this paragraph does not contribute to the HOWTO's stated
> goal of helping women enter the Linux community.
To review, this was section #2.8, i.e., the eighth of nine points in
section 2, the list of candidate reasons "why there are so few women in
Linux". Thus, it would seem that the purpose of the paragraph is the
same as that of all other paragraphs in section 2.
[HOWTO wording to the effect of: Talk respectfully about people of all
sorts, else women will tend to assume you'll treat them equally badly.]
> [Neanderthals who need to realise that exist.] But is phrasing it
> this way, and in such a general way, the best and most effective way
> to reach most of your audience?
This item, point #3.4, does strike me as more than a little silly. Why
would a women listener assume you will automatically hold her in
disrespect, just because you showed disrespect to _someone_? Isn't it
just as likely if not much more so that you simply disrespect people for
reasons that happen to merit disrespect?
And in fact it can be bracingly pleasant to be in a situation of
impartial mutual disrespect. I recommend it to those tired of
high-context social posturing. (But maybe I have a low tolerance for
that that posturing on account of being male. ;-> )
However, that was not your primary objection. You state that it's
ineffective phrasing. OK, feel free to suggest effective phrasing.
(I wouldn't, because I personally think it's a silly thing to urge --
but not silly enough that I'd go complaining about it on mailing lists.)
Anyhow, then you go and say:
> Or will most of the audience feel insulted and belittled while the
> Neanderthal goes merrily on his way anyway?
Now, why in Sam Blazes would "most of the audience feel insulted and
belittled"? Henson didn't say they're doing anything wrong.
This seems to follow the pattern where you and some other list
participants have read passages where Henson points out that some men do
X (where that happens to be true), and you guys profess to feel insulted
and belittled because she pointed that out. That's illogical. She's
saying that some guys, presumably not you, do X and ought to learn Y.
That's not only not insulting to you; it's not even addressed to you
(unless you have something you feel abashed about).
> Generalization, and a bad one at that.
Actually, no. It didn't characterise anyone in generalities, either
well or badly. Read the text. It's simply not.
["few women have the endless interest in minutiae that men often
display"]
> This is condescending, generalizing, offensive, and demeaning.
Unless you have some special reason to think Henson is speaking of you,
it's none of the above. Same reason as previously.
> I'm tired, it's late, and I hope I've made my point.
Sad to say, not really.
[1] I hope nobody minds my lapsing into cranky grammarian mode. I'm one
of those people who applaud stores for signs saying "15 items or fewer"
rather than "15 items or less", and figure I might as well note
solecisms in LDP text under examination as I go, strictly in a spirit of
helpfulness. For the record, "anxious" means imbued with dread, while
"eager" means anticipatory and desirious.
--
Cheers,
Rick Moen "vi is my shepherd; I shall not font."
####@####.#### -- Psalm 0.1 beta
