| |||||||||||||
Overt outreachOvert outreachPosted Feb 3, 2013 0:45 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Overt outreach by shmget Parent article: 25 Women in 10 Free Software Organizations for GNOME's Outreach Program for Women I thought it was obvious that in the first example you cite the objective was to select developers for a given development project; while in the second the goal is to increase participation of women in free software, therefore the way to do it is using gender. The objective is what counts in both situations. Note that in free software developers are not selected but they offer to participate; in this program women are encouraged to do so with an internship. There is no exclusion of male developers in any project, just an incentive to a certain group which is grossly underrepresented. By the way: the Golden Rule, not a good idea. Try the categorical imperative. I think applying similar programs (for men or women) to any situation where gender imbalance is about 90~99% would not be a bad idea.
(Log in to post comments)
Overt outreach Posted Feb 3, 2013 2:04 UTC (Sun) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]
" in this program women are encouraged to do so with an internship. There is no exclusion of male developers in any project, just an incentive to a certain group which is grossly underrepresented. "
Certainly there is an exclusion from the internship.
If the program was about encouraging women to _volunteer_ to open source project, or encouraging women to _apply_ to GSOC, for example, and helping them to be successful GSOC student... that would be a completely different story.
Overt outreach Posted Feb 3, 2013 10:16 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Of course there is exclusion from the internship, but not from the participating projects. You may dislike the program as much as you want, but accusing it of discrimination when it is meeting its explicit goals is absurd. That is not what discrimination is about, and you should all know better.
Overt outreach Posted Feb 3, 2013 10:46 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> but accusing it of discrimination when it is meeting its explicit goals is absurd.
so if the KKK were to make a program to advance white males you would say that it's not discrimination because it achieves the goals of the program??
somehow I don't think so.
If you can't change the group that a program is designed to benefit to any other group without causing cries of discrimination, then it's highly likely that the program is practising discrimination in favour of the group it's trying to help.
Now, that discrimination may or may not be justified as a corrective measure for past problems, sometimes two wrongs do make a right (depriving someone of their freedom is wrong, but we do it as punishment to criminals who have wronged others), I'm not arguing that this program is evil.
but saying that it's not discrimination if the group it excludes is X for only some values of X but not for other values of X is not being true to the term.
Overt outreach Posted Feb 3, 2013 11:05 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] The KKK was not practicing discrimination within their own organization; it just had abhorrent objectives. But these objectives included practicing discrimination in many other organizations and situations.I believe we are just one step short of invoking Godwin's law, so forgive me if I don't participate in this discussion any more. If with the arguments provided you don't see the difference then you need more enlightenment than I am able to provide, or you are being obnoxious on purpose. Either way it is of no use.
Overt outreach Posted Feb 3, 2013 22:19 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Purposely involving the KKK in a discussion. Really, wtf?
|
|||||||||||||