| |||||||||||||
Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really??Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really??Posted Aug 27, 2009 21:43 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338)In reply to: Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really?? by BrucePerens Parent article: FSF to host a mini-summit on Women in Free Software
Out of curiosity, are you more interested in being right, or in winning a pissing match with Matt?
(I actually disagree with Matt -- I think your data is fine for showing that women are rare in FOSS and ham radio. You don't need more data. The problem is that you want to conclude from this that the reason they are rare is that they're uninterested. For that you need *different* data. Like data that tells you something about why they are rare, or whether they are interested. There's lots of that available, including stuff written by Real Scientists, and we even did the googling for you. It doesn't support your conclusion. In the mean time, in this game you're playing about which evidence you have to listen to, you're denying that it matters that actual, individual people were actually, in reality, hurt.)
(Log in to post comments)
Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really?? Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:02 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] I just wanted to point out to him that he is not arguing under the same rules he demands of me.What googling? I didn't see anything dealing with technical volunteerism. I submit that there are differences between this and technical employment.
Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really?? Posted Aug 28, 2009 1:31 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] I just wanted to point out to him that he is not arguing under the same rules he demands of me.Yes, I understand that. I'm not convinced you're right -- he's explained why -- but I was responding to the fact that in choosing to make that point, and in the way you did, you communicate that you're more worried about the rules than the actual content of the discussion; indeed, that you're willing to deny the relevance of real people's pain in order to score a point. ("These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed..." There may be a reason that it's mostly men who have been willing to *cough* volunteer to discuss this with you?) What googling? I didn't see anything dealing with technical volunteerismI was referring to the copious links I gave earlier, all of which deal with FOSS specifically (i.e., not proprietary software development, though they don't *avoid* the broader issues); the FLOSSPOLS work in particular should satisfy any demands for scientific rigor.
Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really?? Posted Aug 28, 2009 4:41 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] I rejected Matt's effort to shut down my discussion with scientific standards that he would not accept himself. I have every right to contest such rhetorical trickery.I have already explained that to do so was not meant to deny anyone's pain, but to point out to Matt that by his standards he could not make any statements from the data either. Now that there are women contributing to the discussion, you might do better to let them speak for themselves.
Women don't have the same passion for open source men do? Really?? Posted Aug 29, 2009 11:15 UTC (Sat) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
> I have every right to contest such rhetorical trickery.
I agree, and have never claimed otherwise. You have every right to say whatever you want.
I was pointing out that the things you chose to say were, perhaps, problematic, and that choosing to exercise your right in that way might be causing collateral harm in order to pursue a (relatively) trivial point. When I do things like that, I like to be informed -- not because I'm worried that I'll overrun my rights and get arrested or something (?), but because I generally prefer not to be an accidental asshole. It isn't necessarily a big deal in this instance, but there was an underlying principle there that I thought you might want to have pointed out.
> I have already explained that to do so was not meant to deny anyone's pain,
I heard that, and I appreciate it. But should I therefore not point out the problem? If I punch someone in the nose, and it was an accident, then 1) their nose is still broken, 2) they may be legitimately unimpressed if I say "oh well but my intention was good!", 3) I'm still responsible.
Again, I don't need an apology or something. (I can't, of course, speak for others either way.) But you've used your good intentions as a defense several times on this page, and so again, it's a general principle you might want to consider.
> Now that there are women contributing to the discussion, you might do better to let them speak for themselves.
I speak for myself, about things that I see and believe. Certainly I don't mean to co-opt or silence any women in doing so. Nor do I see evidence that they think I have. I've seen two comments from women about my participation here: Liz Henry said I "rock"[1]. Skud said that one of my comments described "*exactly* why [she hadn't] dived until this thread until now"[2]. (Ironically, she was talking about my explanation[3] of why your demanding to talk to a woman was uncool, with the links I referred to above.)
So far, you're the only one who's objected. If people -- esp. women -- find my contributions problematic then I'll absolutely listen. But perhaps you should let them speak for themselves?
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/349243/
|
|||||||||||||