| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
What is BrokenWhat is BrokenPosted Aug 12, 2005 7:42 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205)In reply to: What is Broken by xoddam Parent article: Getting in touch with the feminine side of open source (NewsForge)
Ask *any* woman entering a male-dominated field and she'll have a dozen stories to tell, of where her contribution has been belittled or overlooked. Of course that's true, but you're also being misleading. Any man would have such stories as well. The prima facie evidence is not "under-representation" alone. There is a volume of anecdotal evidence that people are turned away (and all such evidence is necessarily anecdotal, statistics *can't* tell a story). Read the links. Yet I know women, personally, in the field, who don't agree with your analysis. Furthermore, even the anecdotes you point to often don't describe any sexism at all when I read them. And as for "nefarious", most incidence of sexism isn't malicious in intent. Most sexist remarks aren't made with that intention. Much sexism is perpetrated by women, in the forms of maternal ambition, peer pressure and role modelling. And this paragraph confirms what I suspected. Despite calling my description a straw man, you've just confirmed its accuracy. The problem is in your definitions. You're defining 'sexism' in a way that is absurdly broad, so of course you find it. When you extend the meaning of the word so incredibly far that it includes 'maternal ambition' and 'complimenting a colleague on her appearance' you're making my point for me. What you object to, it seems, is simply that people (both men and women) don't universally share your values and make decisions you approve of. So you want to socially-engineer your fellow citizens into better compliance with your idea of how they should be. And this is exactly what I was objecting to. Real instances of sexism do exist, and they deserve to be taken seriously. But what you're talking about is something entirely different, and quite bluntly, none of your business. When you weasel around with your definitions and make the latter sound like the former, you do a grave disservice to the real victims of the former.
(Log in to post comments)
What is Broken Posted Aug 15, 2005 8:09 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Furthermore, even the anecdotes you point to often don't describe> any sexism at all when I read them. You are looking at mild versus grave expressions of a systemic bias. The dividing line is very subjective. Since you go so far as to deny there's a problem at all, I am not surprised that you don't see sexism where someone is pointing it out explicitly. ... > Real instances of sexism do exist, and they deserve to be taken > seriously. But what you're talking about is something entirely > different, and quite bluntly, none of your business. What I'm talking about is a systemic bias, and since I'm a part of the system of course it's my business. You acknowledge that there is a bias against women in engineering, but you say that I have no right to argue against it, because you know some women who aren't offended by its milder expressions. I'm not saying everyone ought to be offended by, and to rail against, the least offensive examples of that bias. I *do* say that it is possible and desirable to get past the point where one profession or another is thought of as a man's realm. > When you weasel around with your definitions and make [trivial > sexism] sound like [gross sexism], you do a grave disservice to > the real victims of [gross sexism]. When someone has been actively victimised, certainly she should have recourse other than to cry 'fix the system'. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't need fixing, nor that I'm weaselling. It is my firm opinion that a systemic bias is a bad thing, and that reducing the bias is the best way to help the large number of real victims -- whether they're in the personally-victimised minority, or have merely decided that fighting for recognition isn't worth the effort and they'll be happier in "feminine" occupations.
ad hominem Posted Aug 15, 2005 8:18 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > What you object to, it seems, is simply that people (both men> and women) don't universally share your values and make decisions > you approve of. So you want to socially-engineer your fellow > citizens into better compliance with your idea of how they > should be. Thanks for the psycho-political assessment. I'm no social engineer like Lenin or the Rockefellers, I just think it's worth proving a point when I see someone in denial. Basically this social change is already underway (what, a lady doctor? I couldn't possibly...), there's no fighting for me to do. I try to direct my political energies elsewhere. My turn. What you object to, it seems, is that my opinion is that the world isn't perfect and that my ethics lead me to prefer to improve the world than to resign myself to injustice. Since you seem to like the world the way it is, it appears that you would like anyone who points out a problem with it to go away and leave you to enjoy your privileged position unmolested.
ad hominem is all on you man Posted Aug 15, 2005 9:43 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Plus more straw men than you can shake a stick at. Rewriting all my quotes for me to change the meanings to match what you imagine I should have said was a nice touch. Makes it pretty clear you're incapable of giving ideas outside of a narrow band a fair hearing - you just rewrite them in your own head until they're what you know how to argue against. What you object to, it seems, is that my opinion is that the world isn't perfect and that my ethics lead me to prefer to improve the world than to resign myself to injustice. Not at all. What I object to is that you claim to have a right to judge other peoples 'maternal ambitions' for instance. Your inability to accept and honor the individual who chooses to live her life for herself, instead of for your idea of a perfect society. There is no 'perfect' at that level, because what's perfect for one person isn't perfect for another. This means that implementing one persons 'perfect' can only be done by implementing another persons 'hell' - until we learn to respect each other as individuals, rather than collective abstractions. Or, to put it another way, you need to figure out what 'justice' is before you start lecturing other people about 'injustice.' Since you seem to like the world the way it is, it appears that you would like anyone who points out a problem with it to go away and leave you to enjoy your privileged position unmolested. Another wonderful ad-hominen, with no more basis in reality than any of the rest. As a matter of fact, I have no privileged position, by your definitions I must be extremely oppressed. But it's your definitions that are broken.
would you like to step outside...? Posted Aug 16, 2005 10:10 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] It's a nice chat but lwn is not the place to sitand contradict one another. We're supposed to be polite, respectful, and informative and I think we just ceased to be any of those. Email me (fw_jon at xoddam dotnet) if you really want to explain how I've changed your meanings.
|
|
||||||||||||