| |||||||||||||
Not just the trolls' faultNot just the trolls' faultPosted Oct 5, 2007 17:33 UTC (Fri) by wilck (subscriber, #29844)In reply to: I wonder how it's possible to misread it so bad... by ekj Parent article: Yet another male perspective on women in free software
Very good point. Women are used to experience rudeness and sexism in almost every area of society. Whether or not that drives women away is a function of how attractive the activity itself is. Work, for example, isn't easy to avoid, and (using your example) discos attract more women than FLOSS forums.
I agree that rudeness itself is not the main problem. However, if someone is being rude, the reactions of the others matter a lot - it's good if many participants express their dissent. Otherwise, it's natural for the victim to interpret the silence as consent, and, consequently, feel attacked by the community as a whole.
What else? Besides the trolls, there's less evident sexism in the behavior of the majority of FLOSS participants. It's probably harder for female contributors to get appreciation for their work, and get respected as a hacker, not a woman in the first place.
Even that disregarded - it's possible that the resasons why people participate in our community simply don't appeal much to women.
(Log in to post comments)
Not just the trolls' fault Posted Oct 11, 2007 8:43 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] desire for the rewards the meritocracy has to offer One note here about women being "more social": This stereotype is only seeing one part of the picture. The stereotypical "social" woman tries to generate "harmony" in the society she's in. Problems are avoided, solutions tend to be compromises. Women prefer to share work equally, i.e. in a round-robin scheme, or everybody sits together and does the same thing. Our ape ancestors also have different hierarchies: Female apes have their position in the hierarchy by how long they have been in the group, and who was their mother. Female chimps can only raise in hierarchy when some upper female dies or is driven out of the group (female social monkeys regularly change groups, mostly at young age, for better genetic diversity, but they have to start at the bottom of the hierarchy ladder there). Male apes fight for their position in the hierarchy. Female chimps often do all they can to calm down these fights (by lousing the males), and sometimes, they reject the winner of a fight if he was to jerky. As a consequence, a meritocracy is something alien to women. The stereotypical "social" man lives in a different social system. His male society rewards fights, because you can change your position in hierarchy. Work is shared by dividing it into different portions - the typical male specialist teamwork. Territories are guarded and protected. This is all social behavior, but it's different from female social behavior. Now, these are all stereotypes, the human being is very adaptive, and can change behavior much more than chimps or macaques. However, when we talk about sexism, the allegedly typical "male" unsocial behavior (alleged by women) isn't unsocial. It's just not "female" social behavior, it's different. It has different tradeoffs, and needs different environments to work out. We see that how over time boys and girls have different success rates in coed school systems. Some decades ago, competitive behavior was rewarded, and boys were generally better. Now, being cooperate with the teacher is rewarded, and girls are generally better, while boys are perceived more as "troublemakers". In a mostly male environment, like FLOSS development, we see a lot of stereotypical male social behavior. People fight over things, people specialize, and fence their territories. If you want to have a case study, look at the staircase scheduler vs. CFS. Ingo is the territory owner (he wrote the O(1) scheduler). Con is an outsider. There are valid technical considerations why CFS got in finally, but during the years before CFS was written, the situation was quite different. Before, it was typical male ape (human jerk) social behavior. Regardless if this will attract more women or not: We ought to change that. Fencing territories is not the right thing to do in FLOSS. Specializing and dividing work into different portions is welcome. Competition is fine, dog-fights aren't. Social is what's adequate to the problems of a group. It's not always nature which gives us the most adequate social behavior - neither men nor women have the right social behavior for modern society in there genes. That's what we have our large brains for.
Not just the trolls' fault Posted Oct 16, 2007 4:34 UTC (Tue) by einhverfr (guest, #44407) [Link] A lot o your complaints really are aimed at a dictator model or similar model, You can see Linux kernel development as following an almost military structure (Linus as general, his Liutenants, etc. all the way down to the common foot-coder). Which is their choice. LedgerSMB (my main project) took a very different approach, based in part on the PostgreSQL community. We have a core development team (6 members) which make decisions about infrastructure, project direction, release milestones, etc. THen there is a larger number of people with commit access, and an even larger number of people who submit patches via Sourceforge. We are organized more like a Greek city-state than like an army. Although most areas of the core team have taken lead roles in various areas, some specialize more than others. One guy does mostly db stuff. Another guy has been a strong reference of Perl language, another member is a lead on application security, and I am the lead on accounting logic. Interestingy, only a few people really heavily specialize in a small area of the software and most people are involved in everything. I will point out a few things that should be obvious: 1) Territorial theories (about men being more territorial) are misapplied. Everyone will defend his/her territory, but men and women do this differently. 2) Everyone, men and women alike, want to feel like valued community members. Gender doesn't change that. 3) different people have different talents and may want to contribute differently. Anyway, I am looking heavily at questions of open source community management. I may start to put my findings together into a whitepaper of sorts.
Fundamentally disagree Posted Oct 16, 2007 4:07 UTC (Tue) by einhverfr (guest, #44407) [Link] First, the very fact that we are asking "why aren't there more women involved in FOSS" is a part of the problem. I may be male, but I hear a *common* complaint from women in FOSS that they are constantly asked that question. My grandmother was a physicist and she felt the same way. So by making an issue of it, we create a problem. Point 1: Don't let gender matter. A second point is that there are a *lot* of badly run FOSS projects out there (SQL-Ledger comes to mind...) where the main developer actively drives away would-be contributors because he (I don't know of any female cases off the top of my head) doesn't want competition. Point 2: Many equal, competent, and talented voices are better than one. Have a core community which debates, deliberates, and decides core project issues. If you must go with a dictatorship model, do what Linus did and stay away from commercial involvement. Finally, every piece of software lives or dies based on community. This community is three tiered: Core management, contributors and advocates, and users. Focus aggressively on building the community an make all contributors feel welcome. Point 3: Community is what matters most. Make the most of it. I seriously think that if we start looking at every individual as someone who can get involved and benefit both him/herself and the community by doing so, the question will become meaningless and it will correct itself.
|
|||||||||||||