Good. Now we have a list and can discuss it. [LWN.net]

Good. Now we have a list and can discuss it.

Posted Sep 30, 2007 10:04 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Ok. If the issue is "problems faced by women in FOSS" then where is the list ? by gdt
Parent article: To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

1. Threats of sexual assault via e-mail.

Hmm... Guys usually get death threats exclusively, gals are often sexually harassed too. Do you advocate switch to death threats in both cases ? Hard to do and I'm not sure what it'll change...

2. Disparagement of women's abilities, in these very comments no less.

Fact of "real life" translated to FOSS. Note that this "diparagement" is often encouraged by these same "victims" when it's convenient for them in real life.

3. Objectification of women as sexual objects -- post a comment as a female to Slashdot and you'll see what I mean.

Hmm... If you do say that you are female in the post - you started the process of objectification (why should it matter if you are female or not?), the same - when you use nick like "tuxchick": first you point out that the most important fact about you is the gender and then you complain that people are concentrating on that. This is illogical. If don't concentrate on gender in your post - you'll get few derogatory comments anyway, but that's just how Slashdot is: there are always a lot of jerks around and they are always ready to attack gender, religion, nationality, etc.

4. Sexist advertising in major Linux journals.

Fact of life. If this page has 14 females on it (half of them pictured as sexual objects) and only 5 males - why do you expect "Linux journals" should do better ?

5. Soft porn images in illustrations in major Linux journals.

Hmm... Never seen such a problem, but Ok - this item probably real: I just don't real "major Linux journals".

The rest of post explains how we should fight sexism by treating women differently than men and mixes conclusions with premises so I'll not discuss it.

to post comments

Good. Now we have a list and can discuss it.

Posted Sep 30, 2007 11:46 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

Ah, right. So women are acceptable if and only if they hide the fact that
they're female, and if they don't hide it then they deserve to be attacked
on the basis of gender?

It's odd that this only seems to apply to *women*. I don't notice anyone
criticising `AnswerGuy', for instance, for daring to use a similarly
gender-indicative term as part of his nick: and nor should they. Using
`AnswerGuy' as a nick is not the same as yelling `all that matters is that
I am male; I am a hunky beefcake and all I'm good for is male-only
tasks'[1]; equally, using the nick `tuxchick' is not saying `all that
matters is that I am female; I am asking to be attacked on the basis of my
gender'.

We've seen this before: it's the `she was asking for it' `explanation' for
all kinds of attacks on women based on things like how they dress. This
time it's only being used to `explain' a nasty attitude, but it's still
logic as faulty as when it's used to `explain' assaults.

[1] among my relatives this is pretty much restricted to 'doing the
cooking' :)

(this really is a consciousness-raising thread. It's damn valuable for
that alone.)

Good. Now we have a list and can discuss it.

Posted Sep 30, 2007 12:47 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (1 responses)

"Guy" doesn't really have strong sexist conotations. Chick, on the other hand, does (as opposed to "girl", "gal", etc.). A better example thus would be someone calling himeself "AsnwerStud" or a similar nick name.

Good. Now we have a list and can discuss it.

Posted Sep 30, 2007 13:03 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

This is an English-language dialect difference, I think.

Good. Now we have a list and can discuss it.

Posted Sep 30, 2007 13:07 UTC (Sun) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link]

> I don't notice anyone criticising `AnswerGuy', for instance,

Has he ever been after any gender-related issue? I don't remember. Similarly, I don't remember "tuxchick" being in any slightest manner being offended in any technical thread here at LWN. Can you provide a link showing otherwise?