Subject:
Re: Review needed of 'Encourage Women in Linux' HOWTO
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
10 Dec 2003 16:02:41 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031210091028.02495798@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 01:58 12/10/2003, Rick Moen wrote:
> > I'd appreciate your reading of my critiques made a couple of nights
> > ago.
>
>Per your request.
Rick,
You make some excellent critiques in your message, and in the spirit of
winding this discussion down, I'll try to respond as succintly as possible.
>[Concerning two odd sentences in section 1.1 about "Audience":]
>
>But, more fundamentally, I think psychoanalysing people who misbehave
>is unlikely to be useful, and undermines the primary message by serving
>as flamebait.
Now we're communicating. What you have there, in that one sentence, is the
primary argument I have been espousing. Some (a lot?) of the possible good
the HOWTO could do is undermined by some of the things the author says, or
_how_ she says some of those things. Hence, some slightly cooler-headed
review and modification of sentences like those discussed above would
improve the HOWTO and increase its effectiveness.
>[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).
Your point is valid and well-taken. It's just that I feel (emotionally, not
logically) like the HOWTO later proceeds to victimize women somewhat,
resting a lot of the weight of that victimization on the whole
less-confident argument. I don't feel (again, feel) that this victimization
does women any good, and so I take issue to its prevalence throughout the text.
However, this is an opinion both in terms of the effectiveness of the
document and in terms of the subject matter being discussed, so the author
and anyone else is entirely entitled to disregard it if they so desire.
>[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.
I have seen such behavior, at very close quarters. There is no doubt it
exists. However, I find that it is directed at nearly anyone in such a
circumstance, by nearly everyone else; I have not seen nor have I heard my
female classmates and colleagues complain that this is particularly a male
problem. My complaint is that the author infers this to be a problem
behavior related to /men/ thinking that /women/ who leave the field
couldn't cut it.
What the HOWTO does is start from this very real, very general problem, and
from there it draws the specific conclusion that when a woman leaves a
field, a man says "loser" (I guess it assumes /women/ do not say such
things), and the man says this /because/ she is a woman and not due to
competitiveness, politics, or whatever else, and that the frequent
repetition of this event perpetuates the myth of women being less
computer-savvy. This is the train of thought the HOWTO communicates to me,
and it is this train of thought which, in MY humble opinion, grossly
distorts reality.
The phrase "men often assume their female counterparts leave the field
because they 'just aren't good enough'" is perfectly believable, but it
goes together with "and men and women, blacks, whites, reds, and greens
will all tend to happily assume that anyone who leaves the field does so
for the same reason." I do not believe that the author's conclusions or
empirical thought process that this is a problem of male attitudes toward
females is at all valid in this case.
>["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.
And is that the best way to say it, express it, or phrase it? Is it
necessary and/or beneficial? Or is it another example of the HOWTO
undermining its effectiveness by including TOO-dramatic slams that become
flamebait and distract the interested reader from other, more worthy points?
>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."
I was, at that point, searching for specific examples of distortion,
generalization, and flamebait. I deleted that sentence because I agree with
it. <smile> Indeed girls need to learn, the same way as guys do, how to be
assertive and make sure their voice is heard. On the other hand, I will
also argue that most men need to take lessons in diplomacy, tact, and
social conduct, areas in which women have typically excelled. I do believe
there are differences in how the genders are raised, and I do agree that
those differences should be reduced or eliminated such that each person is
able to handle _all_ elements of modern life and society equally well, or
at least is not predisposed or conditioned not to do so. It's not a one-way
street...
> > 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.
If we're being specific, note Neo's remark when meeting her for the first
time in Matrix:
"You're Trinity? The one who hacked the IRS D-base? Whoa..." So she
initially gets respect from him as a hacker, and only later by kicking ass
around town.
Of course, he then goes on to "I just always thought Trinity was a guy" and
gets the expected and appropriate "most guys do" slap which seems to carry
the unsaid "you poor slobs" at the end of it.
A perfectly valid and enlightened scene, I think. Realistic, even including
Neo's somewhat sexist presumption and Trinity's response.
I'll skip the rest of the movie/TV things, since you're specifically
looking for hacking, coding, or programming, whereas I said something along
the lines of "lots of women who outfight, outthink, or outcode their male
counterparts or colleagues". The women I mentioned are mostly fighters not
coders... but then again I know more karate than C, so sue me. <grin>
>[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_? [...]
>
>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.)
I was trying to be diplomatic and suggest that, if the author really feels
that way, then perhaps phrasing it another way might be more effective.
Personally, I think it's way off the mark and would delete it entirely if
it were my document.
>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).
Yes, there is that pattern. And some of that stuff did bother me. And no, I
do not feel that I have anything to be abashed about.
But generally the author of a document (especially an advocacy document)
wants to communicate a point, right? And in this case, the audience is not
just the Neanderthals but also the Homo-Erectus-or-better types who also
want more equality and participation for women, right? And if you're the
author and you find that the way you communicate your point is incendiary
to some of those Erecti (<grin>), then regardless of whether that reaction
is logical or emotional, you'd be interested to know about it since it
affects how effective and successful your advocacy is, right?
You may or may not make changes to your document based on the objections of
either Neanderthals or Erecti, but you at least _listen_ and try to
understand those objections or reactions. Perhaps you're saying something
100% true and valid, and you can say it in another way that is also 100%
true and valid but which gets your point across better to those you are
trying to reach. _This_ is what I have also been trying to communicate to
Val Henson.
Val, unfortunately, posted (AFAIK) _one_ message saying she welcomed
critique and review and suggestions, and then was silent for the whole
discussion, then popped back to chew on Rahul for publicly suggesting
netiquette to Jutta, chew on me publicly (going against her own advice) for
joking with Mary, and attacking/disqualifying Raymond pretty much for
disagreeing with her. I have formed a much poorer impression of her from
her posts than from her HOWTO (which I keep saying is good and useful, just
too radical sometimes). Heck, I think _you_ have done a much better job of
defending and discussing her document than she has.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
