OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering [LWN.net]

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 8:35 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
In reply to: OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering by paulj
Parent article: FSF to host a mini-summit on Women in Free Software

There are many project leaders and other high-profile individuals who seem particularly prone to causticism, defensiveness and communication-failure - and rarely, if ever, are they taken to task.

Some of them are high-functioning Asperger's syndrome sufferers and it's not their fault. Indeed, the only reason their plight is not considered worse than that of the women is that there are so many of them that the community is collectively used to their quirks.

to post comments

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 11:42 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (86 responses)

I used to do voluntary work for people with Asperger's. It doesn't automatically make you an asshole. Nor is it an excuse for being one. Implying that this kind of behaviour is a direct result of an autistic spectrum disorder is a grotesque insult to all the people with Asperger's who aren't assholes. This kind of behaviour should not be acceptable in the community, and shrugging it off as "Oh, it's not their fault" does nothing whatsoever to solve the problem.

Observation

Posted Aug 25, 2009 12:35 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (6 responses)

Does nobody else find it strange that the people who are making public comments about being highly offended by rms's vague joke are mostly men who don't seem to have done anything previously about gender equality?

For people with such strong feelings and rigorous moral standards on this issue, I'm puzzled by the lack of visibility of their related work.

If a politician was in this situation, they'd be accused of empty opportunistic points-scoring.

Observation

Posted Aug 25, 2009 12:39 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm not clear whether you're referring to me or not, but if so then suggesting that I've done nothing about gender equality in the past is pretty clearly inaccurate.

Observation

Posted Aug 25, 2009 12:48 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

I wasn't referring specifically to you.

Your post just motivated me to join the discussion because everyone else had used polite language before you.

Observation

Posted Aug 26, 2009 19:35 UTC (Wed) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link] (2 responses)

What % of LWN readers are female? Bet it's somewhere around the % that contribute to Free Software. So, ya know... 1.5%

Observation

Posted Aug 26, 2009 19:37 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

According to the brief survey we throw at people when they create an account, LWN readers are 2.9% female, 12% "unspecified."

Observation

Posted Aug 27, 2009 2:25 UTC (Thu) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link]

Thanks! So 3-15%...and there are what...? 6-10 people in this thread? So umm...yeah it being a male-dominated thread when it's a male-dominated community...not that surprising

Observation

Posted Sep 6, 2009 7:51 UTC (Sun) by mdz@debian.org (guest, #14112) [Link]

Who are you actually referring to here, and what research have you done into
their gender identity or activism?

Why do you find it suspicious that, in a community which is estimated to be
over 95% men, that the respondents to almost anything should be mostly male?

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 14:57 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (2 responses)

To be fair to Bruce, he did say "Some of them".

It's possible, if HFAs/Aspies are for some reason overly represented amongst free software developers (compared to engineering generally), and given that developers are the 'rock stars' of the free software world and so are somewhat trend-setting, that they could have a disproportionate effect on culture.

I agree bad behaviour shouldn't be accepted.

I wonder if we need some kind of "How to communicate and generally discuss things productively 101" manual for the free software world. I.e. some kind of positive effort to help improve our communication, rather than a debate about who is and is not sexist (which will inevitably become very heated).

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 15:46 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (1 responses)

> I wonder if we need some kind of "How to communicate and generally discuss
> things productively 101" manual for the free software world. I.e. some
> kind of positive effort to help improve our communication, rather than a
> debate about who is and is not sexist (which will inevitably become very
> heated).

I think a lot of the problem with this community is that many of us are willing to devote epic amounts of energy to really lame, petty arguments in order to bolster our fragile egos. I've certainly been of this persuasion myself, but lately I've been getting quite sick of it -- to the point where I'm spending more and more time with 'real people' who want to just sit back and have a beer rather than have geek-wars about silly things.

Anyway, my point is that I'm not at all convinced that most of the people here (or in computers in general) *want* to learn or follow etiquette. We want to be intellectual bullies duking it out to become the biggest jackass on the playground. Just look at this conversation.. or.. any topic the libertarians can turn into a dick-wagging free-for-all about their silly absolutist ideology. It's all a sport. A game's being played here -- and a particularly insipid and pointless one at that.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 1:13 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

I see your point about the arguments becoming tiresome (it must be that, like me, you've gotten older? :) ).

That said, I enjoy free software. I want to still do so in X decades time, so it needs to be sustainable. There seems to be a very definite problem of a gender imbalance in free software, relative to software engineering generally. That inherently hurts sustainability by greatly limiting the pool of expertise available to free software, in addition to harder to quantify social sustainability effects.

So yeah, it's annoying we have to spend energy on this, but it seems really important. It's good mjg59 spends energy on this (though, I think he still needs to fine-tune his approach a bit more). It's good the FSF are having a conference.

Course, seems we can't even discuss the issue with each other without getting worked up, so far..

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 17:06 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (69 responses)

No, it does not make the sufferer an asshole. Indeed, it can make them quite sensitive to the things that they do sense. But there are things that you and I might sense that they just won't get. I have spent some interesting hours calmly attempting to explain the viewpoint of another person to a certain leader. I could have been barking like a dog for all that got through to him. Another leader was not able to parse the physical cue of a hand thrust out for shaking. And one, on being introduced to my wife, sort of looked through her rather than make eye contact.

All of these folks write very eloquently and place email correspondence at a very high priority. I've seen one of them repeatedly insist that he had to get back to his email during face-to-face meetings.

There are real physical brain deficits coming into play in these situations.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 17:38 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (68 responses)

The reason I hate this argument is that it manages to simultaneously try to excuse unacceptable behaviour while also marginalising a serious mental disorder that in more extreme cases renders people unable to function in society at all. The reality is that anyone who refuses to believe that their behaviour is unacceptable and then excuses it on the basis of being on the autistic spectrum is being an asshole.

I've been that asshole. I'm very sorry about it, but if more people had pointed it out at the time maybe I'd have dealt with it faster. In the end it took working with people who were unable to, say, go into a bar and order a drink without elaborate social coaching to show me that I was just making excuses for myself. If you're able to turn up to a conference in person and have face to face conversations with multiple people then you're able to learn to recognise that your behaviour has an effect on others and train yourself to avoid things that are likely to cause offence.

Nobody benefits from just saying "It's not their fault". Offended people are still offended and the offender continues offending people and ends up dying sad and lonely. Using the Asperger's defence is itself offensive to people on the autistic spectrum who've overcome the adversities they've faced, those who've put themselves through hell in order to be able to step outside their house on a daily basis, those who you wouldn't know had a diagnosis unless they told you. I'd respectfully ask you not to do it again, but instead to accept that the personality flaws of some of our leaders may be down to their fundamental personality more than any mental disoders they have.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 18:13 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (65 responses)

First, you're confusing your own emotional situation with that of your (former) clients. This is probably not productive because your own behavior issues can not simply be treated as a smaller-scale version of their (much worse) problems. And then you're assuming that mistakes are made because people haven't been coached and are resistant to coaching. RMS in this case is by now well informed that this particular joke won't work in the future, and he's sensitive to things like that. But I know from personal experience that RMS, who on a good day is entertaining, eloquent, a good dancer, and even pretty good at getting girls, simply does not have the empathy to understand some things no matter how long they are explained.

IMO, understanding a not-entirely-sympathetic audience's perception of innuendo in advance to telling the joke is something he would find difficult.

This is from personal experience as long as yours, and with all due respect I will go on saying that you can not expect some folks to reliably act the way you and I would be expected to act, and it's not their fault.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 18:55 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (2 responses)

I wonder if perhaps what mjg is saying is that it is generally the case that those with HFA tendencies who are HF-enough / not-so-far-down-the-scale that they can be productively involved in collaberative software development are by definition sufficiently intelligent and self-aware to be able to modulate their online behaviour.

They might not do brilliantly in face-to-face social settings, but they can almost certainly learn to apply to some rules to improve the way they communicate online. (Note that these rules can include things like appropriateness, etc.. which could go to addressing the more specific perceived problem of sexism, in addition to generally improving the state of communication in free software - the sometimes aggressive/unfriendly/unappealing aspect of which I personally suspect is at least a co-contributing factor in the gender imbalance).

In order to form and apply any such rules, HFAs would need /more/ in the way explicit feedback, rather than just accepting inappropriate behaviour from them. Further, the "form" part can be bootstrapped somewhat.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 19:58 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Regardless of their function / impairment the average engineer has little grasp of the writer's control of tone. This is an area where training can help almost everyone.

It is a problem I encounter frequently in consulting corporations on how to operate relationships with the Open Source community. In general that setting allows me to help choose the corporate communicators for their mediative ability and their capacity to work with unskilled communicators outside of the company without taking umbrage. Sending the engineers to occupational therapy would be beyond the scope of the engagement :-)

Dispensing additional coaching isn't always easy. At some point we can exceed people's ability to receive criticism, and they get upset.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 19:41 UTC (Wed) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link]

I would guess that if you're on the ball enough to figure out 1) that people are upset 2) you're the reason and then that you can use Aspergers as an excuse...you're probably aware of both yourself and others enough to moderate your own behaviour.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 23:10 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (61 responses)

There's several issues I'd like to address here.

The first, and perhaps the most important, is the difference between misjudging your audience and refusing to accept that you've misjudged your audience. I'd have been absolutely fine with RMS apologising for misjudging the audience and accepting that he may face similar audiences in future and adjusting his act to cope. He's given no indication that he's going to do so. I don't think anyone expects people to be perfect all the time. But I do think that the community expects its leaders to be willing to accept that they've fucked up and do better in future. If they're unwilling to do that then they don't deserve to be the community's leaders, regardless of what else they've accomplished. Implying that people with Asperger's are unable to tell the difference between these two situations is a significantly further stretch than I'd take. The response to "I'm offended, please don't do that again" does not require empathy.

Secondly, I take grave offence at the accusation that I'm transferring my own issues onto the people that I worked with (voluntarily and unpaid - I think clients is the wrong word here). How many people with a professional diagnosis of Asperger's have you spent a significant period of time with? Where did you gain the professional qualifications that allow you to correctly position RMS on the autistic spectrum? What basis do you have for accusing me of describing these issues incorrectly and having a faulty understanding of what people with severe levels of Asperger's face?

I suspect that many people would be happier if you stopped implying that Asperger's is equivalent to being unable to say sorry. If individuals want to offer it as an excuse then that's their prerogative. Offering it on behalf of individuals is as insulting as me accusing you of being able to understand my position because you're fundamentally sociopathic. Neither of us is qualified to judge what socio- or psychological disorders are present in others. If you want to persist in this argument then I'd strongly suggest that you find someone with more experience than general folklore to guide you in it.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 3:04 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (60 responses)

Matt,

I was a rafting guide for Environmental Traveling Companions, a group which took people with many different sorts of disability on white-water rafting trips. There were people with developmental delays, and blind people, and kids with cancer, and paraplegics. My job was to help provide them with a good time and to help get them down the river without getting them killed or hurt. Dealing with their emotional issues was one part of it, but I also had to help the blind folks use the pit toilet and the paraplegics to empty their catheters. There were often multiple guides per boat due to the nature of the clients disabilities. I also helped to assist a blind person through his entire time in college.

And I am myself a survivor of (a different set of) developmental delays. So, I've got the experience.

I'm not at all clear who RMS is supposed to apologize to. The most vocal complainer has been Lefty, who does not appear to be a woman. I know Stormy Peters, one of the people behind the upcoming FSF meeting, and I've not heard her calling for an apology. And I still question that the few women who I have heard (third-hand) claim to be offended really should have been offended.

In RMS' position I might well have chosen not to engage in what would rapidly become a low-road argument, and to instead operate some sort of high-road activity such as we see scheduled.

I have known many critics of RMS, but none who would do a better job in his place, and certainly none who put as much of their lives into it as he does.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 9:29 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (59 responses)

So, just to make things clear, you have no professional experience in dealing with (specifically) Asperger's?

And I still question that the few women who I have heard (third-hand) claim to be offended really should have been offended

I really don't think there's much left to say.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 21:26 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (58 responses)

Did you not read the commnent at all? Yes, I have experience far exceeding yours, including with the developmentaly delayed, which very certainly includes Asperger's.

What was that about your having learned not to be an asshole?

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 22:07 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (57 responses)

What I learned is that there are situations in which I was being an asshole and not realising it. What I'm sorry about are the cases where I offended people without wanting to or without realising the degree to which I was causing offence. But at around the same time, I learned that there are times when the correct thing to do is to be an asshole in order to attempt to demonstrate that someone else is being one. Sometimes appeasement isn't the correct answer.

If you've spent weeks of your life working with people with Asperger's, then I apologise. "There were people with developmental delays" is not obviously referring to Asperger's any more than "I've worked with sick people" obviously implies "I have significant levels of experience working with people with advanced prostate cancer", so it's not inherently surprising that I might misinterpret you. I still think you're utterly mischaracterising the condition. It's certainly the case that some people with Asperger's are unable to recognise that they've caused offence, but this really isn't a direct result of Asperger's. Asperger's and assholery are orthogonal axes. Someone's presence at the positive end of both doesn't imply correlation.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 22:34 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (56 responses)

Well spoken, apology accepted, and I apologize too.

The way I see it is that I have continuing relationships to this day with a few folks who really do fit the diagnosis to the best of my knowledge.

I never did imply that RMS was incapable of apologizing. As someone who speaks in similar situations to those of RMS, I have made any number of jokes about sex or religion that might offend someone, while speaking. I am not interested in encouraging anyone who would subject me, and people like me, to a political-correctness magnifying glass and for that reason I will probably not engage such people at all. Not apologize, and not communicate with them at all.

While I believe that the way we represent ourselves may indeed make women uncomfortable sometimes, I still don't believe that's why there are so few women participating.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 23:09 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (7 responses)

While I believe that the way we represent ourselves may indeed make women uncomfortable sometimes, I still don't believe that's why there are so few women participating

What would it take to get you to believe that? This is a serious question.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 0:01 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (6 responses)

Well, I do not see that the emotional challenges of insensitive male discussion that a woman meets in working with free software are greater in scale than the challenges that woman might meet if she volunteered to work in a hospital or as an intern at a law firm or a congressional page. There are stories about each. And yet, they have significant female participation.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 2:29 UTC (Thu) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link] (5 responses)

I think this is where the difference between "I'll put up with their shit because the pay is good, and it cant get *too* bad since there are rules at the office" and "I don't need this from something that I'm doing in my free time that's supposed to be *fun*" comes in.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 4:35 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (4 responses)

Candy-stripers don't get paid. And they do get abused, between male staff who think they're fresh meat and the union folks who think they're scabs. And yet, lots of women do it.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 16:05 UTC (Thu) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link] (3 responses)

Candy-stripers still exist? I thought they were a World War II era thing, and nowadays hospitals employ real Registered Nurses.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 17:14 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

Hospitals employ registered nurses, and many also have volunteers who perform lesser tasks than the registered nurses. Candy-striper is one designation for such people, because of the pink and white striped uniform. They still exist. Often the nurses are unionized, and sometimes there is tension between them and the non-unionized volunteers.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 21:46 UTC (Thu) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link] (1 responses)

And presumably the volunteers in a hospital are able to access the same venues for redress of things like harassment as the paid employees are. At least they can in every organization I've ever volunteered with, though none of them have been hospitals.

After all, there's an additional incentive to not lose volunteers, since the organization isn't paying for their labour.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:07 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

And presumably the volunteers in a hospital are able to access the same venues for redress of things like harassment as the paid employees are.

I am not so optimistic that the situation is fair to the little people. The hospital has much higher stakes in dealing with the union than with volunteers. It is a lot easier for the volunteer to walk out than to accuse some "important" doctor and have a long controversy in which she is tarred too - including in the newspaper. And managements all around have tended to prefer to keep such things quiet.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 17:24 UTC (Thu) by james_w (guest, #51167) [Link] (47 responses)

> While I believe that the way we represent ourselves may indeed make women
> uncomfortable sometimes, I still don't believe that's why there are so few
> women participating.

Some evidence that may sway you:

http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/emailing-richa...

A woman that as a young lady was intimidated by RMS' same routine. Choice quote:

> The sexism on display in his talks and in these comments are the
> precise reason as to why there aren't many women in free software to
> speak up, and the awkward gender ratio and propensity for male nerds to
> shout down any opposition makes it even more difficult to do so.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/011418.html

The ever excellent Abi Sutherland on being a woman in a tech environment. Choice quote:

> Frankly, if I were doing this for anything other than pay, Id have
> long since buggered off with a good book. I certainly wouldnt do it
> for the love of the work,

http://carolynresearch.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/bad-mood/

Bemoaning the apparently pervasive attitude that allows sexist comments to be the norm in many situations. Choice quote:

> Its all just a joke, Im sure. But Ive reached a point in my life
> where it just isnt funny to me. I browse through blogs, popular
> journals, and open source forums and mailing lists looking for ideas
> about what kind of research would be useful and interesting to the
> development community. When I run into this sort of thing, my first
> thought is that I dont want to be part of that kind of development
> community. I have every intention of staying in computer science, but
> at those moments, I know why a lot of women leave.

Yes, one person making a sexist remark in a talk doesn't cause all women to leave the community, but put it in to context, with some women encountering almost daily reminders that they are the minority and that not everyone in the community sees them as more than their gender and it adds up. "Jokes", marriage proposals, scantily clad women in technical presentations, assumptions about interests and skills, physical intimidation, marginalisation, and good old-fashioned disrespect all add up to an uninviting environment.

Yes, the problem starts early with societal pressure on women to not get in
to computers, but that just means we should value those that do make it in to our community, not subject them to the above. The "leaky pipe" effect will mean that we continue to have low numbers of female contributors.

If you are interested in other opinions on the topic I suggest you subscribe to the Geek Feminism blog. Even if you disagree about the causes, listening to smart people talk about the issues is worth a try, we might all learn something.

http://geekfeminism.org/

Thanks,

James

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 18:24 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (46 responses)

Lefty appears to be a man in his 50's. You weren't reading a woman's comments on the "Open Source to Go" blog.

I'll state it clearly:

Women are not so weak that words can keep them from participating in Free Software, amateur radio, and other technical volunteerism.

IMO, you'd be insulting them if you thought so. There must be some other reason keeping them out. I suspect gender-based differences in interest, and do not have a good call on how much of this is nature vs. nurture. There are of course exceptions.

This isn't to say that being less than polite and welcoming of them is acceptable.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 19:37 UTC (Thu) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]

However, on the converse, I'm sure that many people, regardless of gender, do stop/never start participating in communities that are hostile towards them -- regardless of the reason for the hostility.

If you were randomly but frequently insulted, I'm sure you would also come to the conclusion that that particular community is not worth participating in.

I've come to that conclusion multiple times in the past.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 19:50 UTC (Thu) by james_w (guest, #51167) [Link] (42 responses)

> Lefty appears to be a man in his 50's. You weren't
> reading a woman's comments on the "Open Source to Go"
> blog.

I linked to a comment on his blog, left by someone who
identified themselves as a woman. The owner of the blog
has nothing to do with that.

> Women are not so weak that words can keep them from
> participating in Free Software, amateur radio, and
> other technical volunteerism.

When women tell you that these things keep them from
participating you just ignore that? It appears as though
you are living in an echo chamber.

> This isn't to say that being less than polite and
> welcoming of them is acceptable.

Well, thank you for being so gracious as to acknowledge
that much. Now could you stop telling them that they
don't exist and that what they say is untrue?

Thanks,

James

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 20:09 UTC (Thu) by lizhenry (guest, #60479) [Link]

LOL, thanks James, you and njs rock. 8-)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 20:25 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (40 responses)

Of course I know they are there. All 5 or 6 that we have heard from here, and perhaps 200 across the entire Free Software community. I am not yet accepting that the reason that the other women stay away is that women are too weak to counter the social issues.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 20:34 UTC (Thu) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link] (30 responses)

There's a difference between "weakness" and "being unwilling to put up with a constant stream of hostility, othering, and bullshit". One puts the responsibility where it's due. Hint: it's not "weakness".

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:06 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (29 responses)

That's a great observation, it does turn around the way I'm looking at the problem.

But we do have a self-fulfilling prophecy here, don't we? Without you being there to tell the men when they're being intolerable, they probably won't realize they are.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:18 UTC (Thu) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link] (4 responses)

But Bruce, we're here. And we're telling you what's not ok (RMS's virgin "joke" creepiness, for example). Please start listening :)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:28 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

You did write RMS and tell him how the joke made you feel, right?

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:18 UTC (Thu) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link] (1 responses)

Based on his response to criticism in this case and others, I elected to not waste my time.

This is the guy who at Wikimania yesterday asserted in front of a crowd of people that any difference of opinions with him constitutes a personal attack. I'm just not going to bother, sorry :/

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 1:18 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

He's not very well-equipped to deal with conflict.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Sep 22, 2009 16:20 UTC (Tue) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]

I did, twice, much good it did me. I was interested to note that the word "women" didn't appear a single time in either of his responses.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:21 UTC (Thu) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link]

But, uh, I'm going to leave it to the other folks to do the talking, because I have to go teach an introductory Python class to a bunch of women. Woot!

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:24 UTC (Thu) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link] (20 responses)

Hypatia personally, or any of us?

Here are things that are not acceptable and driving women away:

* Being treated like we're invisible or non-existent
* Assumptions that women just aren't interested in computing/FLOSS/etc
* Belittlement of contributions as not "really" contributions
* Sexist jokes
* Sexually-oriented conference presentations
* Booth babes
* A culture that is generally unwelcoming to newcomers/beginners
* Sexual harrassment online and in person at conferences etc
* Upskirt photos on Planet blog aggregators
* Blowjob-related ads in Linux publications
* Not having our experiences believed
* Being asked to explain things over and over again and STILL not being believed
* Being asked "A/S/L" or having pics demanded of us
* Out-of-band communications of an inappropriate personal nature
* Death threats
* Accusations of reverse sexism when we ask people to avoid the above
* ... and more.

Hope that helps.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:45 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (19 responses)

Booth babes

I resent them too. Vendors trying to lure me in by my gonads.

* Upskirt photos on Planet blog aggregators

Ugh. Go ahead and make noise.

* Blowjob-related ads in Linux publications

Is this "Do you suck at coding", or something else?

* Not having our experiences believed

Oh, I believe you. The folks I don't believe are the troop of men here telling me what you think. Maybe it would be better if some of you stuck with LWN instead of being on some girrls-only list. If you want to be believed, being there counts.

* Being asked to explain things over and over again and STILL not being believed

Unless you're telling me there aren't any early-childhood or nature issues in the mix as well, there is not a lack-of-belief issue here.

* Being asked "A/S/L" or having pics demanded of us

It sounds really raw. I do admit to having been discouraged to find that purportedly female project participants were really men. But I don't want to ask them A/S/L to establish that.

* Out-of-band communications of an inappropriate personal nature

I'm assuming this means on IRC. Really bad.

* Death threats

I get them too. What are these folks objecting to? Just your presence? Are they really project participants? I see some people whose job or obsession is to demotivate us and aren't really project participants.

* Accusations of reverse sexism when we ask people to avoid the above

You are not being sexist with me at all as far as I'm aware. But what do I do when someone is? It can happen, you know, and right now I'm damned if I do, and damned if I do not.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:22 UTC (Thu) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link] (5 responses)

* Blowjob-related ads in Linux publications
Is this "Do you suck at coding", or something else?

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Linux_Journal_blowjob_ad

* Not having our experiences believed

Maybe it would be better if some of you stuck with LWN instead of being on some girrls-only list. If you want to be believed, being there counts.

I am on one women-only list out of dozens. Do you seriously believe I (we) are active participants in open source without being on mixed mailing lists, websites, twitter/identi.ca, IRC, conferences, LUGs, etc? Strawman.

* Death threats

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Debian_and_LinuxChix_h...

* Accusations of reverse sexism when we ask people to avoid the above
But what do I do when someone is? It can happen, you know, and right now I'm damned if I do, and damned if I do not.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/faq-ar...

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:41 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, QSol's out of business, it appears. I won't lament.

Was Mike-whoever-he-is identified as a real member of a Free Software community? The reason I am asking is that I have had people do similar stuff to me, and when I've explored I find that they have no real connection to any project and are more likely someone who is paid to make us look bad.

OK, "reverse-sexism" is bogus, and not the sexism I was concerned with.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 0:02 UTC (Fri) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link] (3 responses)

I believe MikeeUSA was an open source developer of some kind; some kind of gaming-related stuff? But it's not really relevant: his death threats are no less scary and offputting.

As for the fact that you (and presumably others) receive death threats, I don't think it's cool or OK that *anyone* threatens anyone's life ever, but I do think men are in a better position to brush it off: there is not such a history of men being killed purely out of misandry. The Debian death threats had an eerie similarity to the Montreal Massacre killer's anti-feminism, and more recently to George Sodini. It is absolutely and realistically scary that men kill women just for being in technical fields and/or believe that feminists are ruining everything. Much as we'd love to ignore it and brush it off, we can't.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 0:58 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I agree with you about threats.

While I would not be a victim of misandry, there is a history of similar nutcases targeting ethnic semites. And lots of folks believe we're running everything too.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 1:42 UTC (Fri) by spender (guest, #23067) [Link] (1 responses)

He also seems to be a user of grsecurity. He's annoyingly littered up completely unrelated technical topics with his misogynistic views several times.

-Brad

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 6:18 UTC (Fri) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link]

thanks for that pointer, spender. lead me to find his real name, finally. seems he's a law student in maine.

i <3 your exploit videos, incidentally.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:35 UTC (Thu) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link] (3 responses)

>> * Blowjob-related ads in Linux publications

> Is this "Do you suck at coding", or something else?

Linux Journal ran an ad for QSol about how their servers wouldn't "go down on you either" with an image of a woman's heavily-made-up face.

>> * Death threats

> I get them too. What are these folks objecting to? Just your presence?
> Are they really project participants? I see some people whose job or
> obsession is to demotivate us and aren't really project participants.

Some nutjob was going off about how women were destroying Debian and he was going to kill them for it.[0]

>> * Accusations of reverse sexism when we ask people to avoid the
>> above

I've seen a few guys enter the #linuxchix IRC channel recently and tell us that our IRC Etiquette rules[1] are sexist because they're about making men not be men (ie not, as you put it, led around by their gonads). That's just an example of the many times guys say it's unreasonable to expect them to be able to control themselves enough to not hit on every woman they see who can code.

[0] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Debian_death_threats
[1] http://www.linuxchix.org/irc-etiquette.html

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:54 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

I've seen a few guys enter the #linuxchix IRC channel recently and tell us that our IRC Etiquette rules[1] are sexist because they're about making men not be men (ie not, as you put it, led around by their gonads). That's just an example of the many times guys say it's unreasonable to expect them to be able to control themselves enough to not hit on every woman they see who can code.

They're children. Either real children or emotionally handicapped adults.

I counsel companies on their relationship with the Open Source community. One part is preparing them for childish behavior on mailing lists, and helping them find mediators who will never take umbrage and then say something that makes the company look bad.

There are actually worse groups than Free Software in this regard. If you have to work with cypherpunks and the crowd who go to defcon, be prepared.

Attempting to educate them is all we can do, I guess.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 3:52 UTC (Fri) by maco (guest, #53641) [Link] (1 responses)

Mmmm yeah DEFCON...Friends asked if I was going to go this year, but knowing my partner wasn't going to be there...no. Young, female, and at a hacker con [that I can't literally run to my apartment from, if necessary] alone? Bad idea.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 6:44 UTC (Fri) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link]

you should come next year. we'll make "maco has a posse" stickers, just like nick's :)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:41 UTC (Thu) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link] (5 responses)

> * Being asked to explain things over and over again and STILL not being believed

> Unless you're telling me there aren't any early-childhood or nature issues in the mix as well, there is not a lack-of-belief issue here.

There are absolutely early-childhood issues at stake. They are covered extensively in the Unlocking the Clubhouse study. It's really a fantastic read.

As for the nature issues, here are three things to consider:

1) Studies which show a lack of difference tend to not get published. This messes up our understanding of gender issues a heck of a lot. This is feminist science studies 101, in a nutshell.
2) Even given that, there is some interesting research and data that shows that a lot of the perceived math/science gender differences are cultural and experiential, rather than in-born. Here's a fascinating one from the school I'm studying at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024145626... . There's also interesting data from places like Malaysia where software dev is more like 50/50 men and women.
3) Even if nature does come into play /at all/, its influence is so eclipsed by culture as to be irrelevant. And, well, we can't change nature, so let's focus on the things we can change. Arguing about how much of a role nature plays doesn't really help us get more women involved.

Here's some further reading about the problems with the "nature" argument, which is also called essentialism within the gender studies context: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Essentialism , which links to http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/faq-bu...

Leaky pipes and early childhood interventions

Posted Aug 27, 2009 23:53 UTC (Thu) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link] (1 responses)

I'd also like to suggest a good search term for discussions about this: "leaky pipe". The analogy is that the process of getting women into open source is like a pipe with leaky points all along the way. All of the leaks need to be stopped up, and stopping any particular leak (whether it is early childhood influences or sexism at tech conferences) will help more deliver more women to the end of the pipe.

Nobody's saying that there aren't other leaks. There absolutely are. But the ones that the open source community can best address are the ones that are specific to the open source community.

If you are interested in eg. encouraging girls in STEM (science/tech/eng/math) education at early ages, there are many other organisatinos working on that. Many of them take donations, or would welcome your volunteer time.

Leaky pipes and early childhood interventions

Posted Aug 28, 2009 0:44 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

The analogy is that the process of getting women into open source is like a pipe with leaky points all along the way.

That frames the issue pretty well.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 3:06 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] (2 responses)

> 1) Studies which show a lack of difference tend to not get published.

Just to expand for the benefit of those without a lot of experience in social science: this has two unfortunate consequences.

First, social scientists constantly have to ask themselves whether some pattern they observe in their data is a result of some underlying principle, or just a coincidence. (If you flip a coin 10 times, and got 8 heads, is that because the coin is unfair? If you had 10 men and 10 women perform some task, and 8 of the women did better than the average man, is that because women in general are better at your task?) That's what statistical testing is for. Unfortunately, statistical tests are never perfect -- they won't tell you that getting 10 heads in a row means your coin is unfair, just that if not then that's one *heck* of a coincidence.

But if you keep trying long enough, then eventually you'll get that coincidence. And "science says women are <...>!" gets press, so lots of the time, when someone's running some random study, they'll do a quick check for gender effects, just in case. If 20 people do this, then 19 of them will get nothing, shrug, and forget about it; 1 of them will flip 10 heads in a row and publish a really excited paper! They don't know they're the 20th person to try, after all. (And that's leaving out the effects of confirmation bias, etc.)

Second, once a claim like that is out there in the literature, it's hard to disprove; if you just repeat the study and don't see a difference, then maybe you just did it wrong or something -- it's hard to get that published. (And even if you do, it's not as exciting, so it won't get press coverage, so a heap of people will go on believing that they Know Something About Men and Women that's just wrong.)

The end result is that the literature on gender differences has heaps of confusing nonsense in it. There are real gender differences too, but they're hard to pin down, and after all that nonsense it's hard to imagine that people would have *missed* anything so dramatic as to cause 98.5%/1.5% differences in participation a specific field invented in the last 30 years. Seriously, that'd be Nobel-worthy.

This isn't my area of specialty, but AFAICT, whether you're right or left handed has more of an effect on your general cognition than what you keep in your pants (and your culture matters a lot more than either).

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 29, 2009 17:05 UTC (Sat) by hypatiadotca (guest, #60478) [Link] (1 responses)

Thanks for expanding on this - it /is/ my area of study (along with my other major in Computer Science) and I kinda glossed over it because of that :)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 31, 2009 22:21 UTC (Mon) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

Yeah, anything to procrastinate on writing this stupid methods section :-)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 2:40 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] (2 responses)

> I resent them too. Vendors trying to lure me in by my gonads

But you also realize that there's a difference between the resentment due to someone trying to lure you by your gonads, and resentment due to being told that -- roughly speaking -- those companies didn't consider you a real member of their audience, and implicitly "reminded" that your proper aspiration in life is to use your body to lure others by their gonads?

I hope so; it's just that I've heard a lot of men grumble about booth babes, but if they really *hated* the concept of booth babes the way that they might, then one way or another I'm pretty sure booth babes wouldn't still exist.

> The folks I don't believe are the troop of men here telling me what you think.

Speaking as part of that troop, that's why I've tried to provide logic, data, and links. I'm well aware that I may have gotten things wrong despite that, and if I become aware of any then I'll certainly apologize. Is there anything I've claimed that you still particularly disbelieve?

> I get [death threats] too.

For thinking about this issue, I highly recommend this comment by Kathy Sierra, especially the second half about what's happened since she talked about her threats in public: http://geekfeminism.org/2009/08/17/george-sodini-montreal...

On merit, that comment actually deserves front-page treatment. But I don't know what the consequences of that would be :-(

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 12:16 UTC (Fri) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link]

Re: the front page -- yeah, our thoughts exactly. We talked about it and were uncomfortable putting it in the spotlight, all things considered.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 12:35 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> if [men] really *hated* the concept of booth babes ...
> booth babes wouldn't still exist.

My theory, which I'm pretty confident about, is that this is a general issue of conferences with mostly male attendees, nothing to do with the free software community.

Booth babes continue to exist at conferences because conferences are full of men with no interest in the topic but were sent there by their employer.

When I see booth babes at a free software conference (actually, I've only seen them at "Linux" conferences), then I know that that stall is a reputationless company selling something with no differentiating features. Red flag for "ignore this stall". Most other LWN readers would also ignore that stall at a free software conference, by my theory.

Then there's the separate category of attendees who can't tell the difference between the companies and who aren't interested in the details anyway - that separate category, which has almost nothing to do with us, is the target of booth babes.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 2:03 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

> Without you being there to tell the men when they're being intolerable, they probably won't realize they are.

Things *may* not be so hopeless: it turns out that telling men when they're being intolerable is actually possible even *without* ovaries.

I joke, but seriously, I don't wait for women to pop up and tell contributors that my community values testing, regular releases, or clean code; why should I make an exception when it comes to human decency? Obviously I'll screw up sometimes or miss things, but 1) women aren't born knowing how to handle this stuff either, 2) if I pick up some of the slack maybe they'll have a chance to actually do the stuff that I can't, instead of fighting fires and pounding their head against walls 24x7.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 29, 2009 11:22 UTC (Sat) by spzeidler (guest, #60508) [Link]

do you need a woman to actually _tell_ you that someone is a sexist idiot if said sexist idiot, upon learning by accident that a participant in a open source themed chat is female, tells said female that females can't do open source and kicks her out? Do you expect the woman to come crawling in again (possibly on her belly apologizing for being her sex) when noone of the other attendants of the chat feels like telling the guy doing the kick he was being an idiot and to stop that?
I'll tell you my reaction. They can stew in their own bugs for all eternity for all I care, I'm not going to touch -that- project with a ten foot pole again.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 20:42 UTC (Thu) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link] (1 responses)

Bruce, there are over 300 women on the LinuxChix grrls-only mailing list alone. I've met over 100 myself, and although I am fairly well travelled and know many women in FLOSS I do not know nearly all of them -- as evidenced by the fact that I only know a few of the people on the LinuxChix list! There are approximately 50 women just working on Dreamwidth and the OTW's Archive. Over 200 women responded to the Perl Survey I ran in 2007, again, mostly not overlapping with those I know from elsewhere.

Pull your head out of the sand.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 22:13 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Thanks for the data, I am really not trying to have a head in sand. My point was that there are too few women participating. That is equally true if there are 2000 rather than 200. It seems that things would be different if there were 20,000 and more different with 200,000. I am still trying to understand why, so few are participating, and I thank you for the assistance with articles.

Desiring respectful treatment isn't about weak vs. strong...

Posted Aug 27, 2009 20:45 UTC (Thu) by miss-electra (guest, #60481) [Link] (1 responses)

Why should I have to fight for respect and recognition that is accorded to others simply by their BEING PRESENT? Why should I have to demonstrate "strength" enough to stand up to some bullshit hazing to be part of a community I want to contribute time, energy, and knowledge to?

Knowledge and time and effort are as much currency as money is. So why is it okay for me to say "I refuse to spend money on someone who acts disrespectfully towards me" and that doesn't cast me (or any woman) as weak...but if I make the same statement about my time/knowledge/effort then it's "weakness"?

Desiring respectful treatment isn't about weak vs. strong...

Posted Sep 4, 2009 6:49 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

Why should I have to fight for respect and recognition that is accorded to others simply by their BEING PRESENT?

Clearly you shouldnt. However you *might* be overestimating the respect others are getting. I wasnt there and I dont know, but I have seen that happen for sure - in many groups (not specific to free software but online conversation in general) there is a hazing process that may be informal and undocumented but is very real. I have seen females in such situation get very offended and storm out, appearing to believe they were singled out for disrespect when in fact each and every guy in the room had gone through the same crap earlier. Now I'm not justifying it and I am NOT saying that was what happened with you - I am just saying it's a possibility. I do know from experience that females *are* routinely singled out for special treatment on the internet, for multiple reasons many of which have been mentioned, it's not right or good but it's a fact. This quite naturally and predictably results in females being generally more likely to take offense based on mistakes as well, or to perceive disrespect even when it is not intended. This is not intended as a criticism at all - it's natural and understandable and predictable, and I think ultimately only improvement in communication can address it.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 20:48 UTC (Thu) by Skud (guest, #59840) [Link]

Also FYI, women in this thread: me, maco, hypatia, yatima, cesy, itgrrl, lizhenry, myrtti, zrusilla, selena, talbutt == 11, plus many more mentioned and linked to.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 27, 2009 21:37 UTC (Thu) by dannyobrien (subscriber, #25583) [Link] (2 responses)

There is some irony that the person asserting that "weakness" is the only possible reason that people feel they can no longer work with a community turns out to be Bruce "I resign! Again!" Perens.

Arguments against this irony from Bruce himself will be rejected as anecdotal. To be valid, I need to hear from everyone else before I can understand what his arguments are.

(If Bruce even exists, which I doubt.)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 28, 2009 12:51 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

> "weakness" is the only possible reason that people feel they can no longer work with a community

He argued that weakness is *not* the reason for women leaving. i.e women are not weak.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 29, 2009 11:36 UTC (Sat) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

Yes, and he originally concluded from this that woman were not leaving, because only weak people would leave. Danny's point looks accurate to me.

(I can't believe we're *actually* describing Bruce's arguments to each other in this subthread.)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 29, 2009 1:29 UTC (Sat) by niv (guest, #8656) [Link]

Ah, the old "I haven't heard from any or many women" gem. Oldie, but a goodie.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Sep 6, 2009 7:58 UTC (Sun) by mdz@debian.org (guest, #14112) [Link]

Really? Women are "weak" for being moved by language?

Why should the pervasive language of patriarchy be any less influential in
excluding people from free software, than the "words" of the GNU Manifesto,
or the Open Source Definition, or the Debian Social Contract, which motivate
many people to participate?

Language is a conduit for ideas and feelings. It's how we communicate with
each other, including telling people who is welcome and who is not.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Sep 22, 2009 17:15 UTC (Tue) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]

Sigh. It would serve you well to actually read what's being cited before you respond to it, Bruce. It's a bad habit of yours, just like "responding" to people in person before they've actually finished what they were saying.

That aside, since you seem to doubt the comments in my blog posting, I'd direct you to Celeste Lyn Paul's identi.ca feed, and Chani Armitage's blog.

Celeste asks (while RMS was giving the keynote in question), "Do men really think RMSs virgin joke at #gcds was not sexist? Very disappointed in FLOSS comm chatter about this."

In the comments to the posting, Chani writes, "talking about relieving women of their virginity casts women in a submissive role, with men in a dominant role, and brings up thoughts of oppression and (indirectly) rape. (yes, thinking about a roomful of guys thinking about taking womens virginity does eventually lead me to wondering how many of them would take it by force.) it becomes less about the non-sexual meaning of virgin and more about all the crazy ideas societies have had about virgin women. and thinking about that stuff would make any woman uncomfortable."

Apparently you know a lot better than these women who were present at RMS' GCDS keynote, Bruce. Maybe they're just being "sickly nonlinear" here.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 20:39 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, their problems *may* be down to Aspergers, but if they are this does not reflect well on them.

See, Aspergers is sort-of-curable. It takes large amounts of time and effort, but unless you have noncommunicative autism, by the time you're thirty or forty you have coping strategies that can lead you to appear mostly normal in most non-extreme social interactions (e.g. don't ask us to function at weddings).

But RMS, for instance, is in his mid-fifties now. If he doesn't grasp the elementary atoms of social intercourse by now it is because he *has not tried*, and that's nobody's fault but his. I know formerly-noncommunicative autistics who dragged themselves to near-outward-normality in less time than that. Plainly, if he has an ASD, he has overcome some of it: he can give public speeches without disintegrating, which either indicates a successful coping strategy in one domain or the absence of an ASD.

Note: I'm not saying here that it is incumbent on all autistics to spend huge amounts of effort acquiring coping strategies to function in normal society. I'm saying that if they don't, then that is their choice: and the consequences of that choice are also theirs, at least insofar as they extend to things like social ostracism. If they turn themselves intentionally into a community leader, as RMS has done, then it is sheerest foolishness not to acquire such coping strategies in advance, as that is a social position in which the interpretation of social cues is of paramount importance. So RMS is in a dilemma here: either he doesn't have ASD, and has shown himself to be a boor, or he does, and has shown himself to be a fool. A man can be a fool in one area and brilliant in another, so the latter is quite possible: but I can't see a third alternative at this point.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 20:59 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Whatever his issues are (I'm not really qualified to use the DSM) there is no question that he's worked very hard to cope. I've seen him in much more extreme situations than a wedding. He's met heads of state and is a public speaker on an almost daily basis. This doesn't mean his coping is perfect.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 20:27 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

Strongly seconded, with one caveat: because autistic spectrum disorders are conditions of developmental delay, hackers with ASDs who haven't had a few decades to figure things out *are*, in a sense, blameless: they're working on it, give them time. But even they would not be assholes to women in particular, but rather to everyone, and generally not intentionally. (Or, rather, if they are being assholes to women in particular, rather than accidentally to everyone, that's because they're assholes, not because they have ASDs, as you said.)

People with ASDs are in any case rarely assholes: that trait is found in people on the top of the social pile, and when ASDers are found anywhere in the social pile at all it is generally at the bottom. When you have very few friends, you really don't act like an asshole anywhere, because it might lose you the few you've got.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 20:35 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Understood. I have worked my way out of what I suspect you'd call today a sensory-motor integration disfunction, but back then they just thought it was cerebral palsy. I did not speak clearly for a long time and still walk on my toes a bit.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 23:21 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

Really, the point I was making is that it's not interesting to judge someone by an individual act - from a social point of view it's far more important how someone deals with having fucked up than how often they fuck up in the first place. What primarily distinguishes a neurotypical from someone on the spectrum is whether they can identify whether a given act is going to be offensive in advance, not whether they modify their behaviour to avoid identical behaviour in the future.

The biggest problem people on the autistic spectrum face is generalising from a specific item of behaviour to broader behavioural aspects. People with no experience of working with those on the spectrum tend to generalise this into a complete inability to learn, which leads to positions like Bruce's implied "It's not their fault if they offend people, no matter how often they're told it's offensive". When we look at the specific case ("Don't make the joke about taking women's emacs virginity, it can be interpreted in a variety of unfortunate ways"), suggesting that it's not RMS's fault if he does it again is entirely inexcusable. I'm genuinely upset at the implication.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 0:52 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (2 responses)

You seem to have gotten stuck slightly attacking Bruce for his Aspie comment, which he seems to have withdrawn more or less.

FWIW, the debate here seems to have at least the first if not more of the elements I wrote about earlier: "over-heated argument, rife with assertion, misunderstanding and failures to to even *attempt* to understand the other". And this amongst commentators who are, afaict, **all agreed** on the core issue of there being a gender problem (possibly due to sexism) in free software, and do not seem to be sexist themselves. I have to say, and perhaps you might take my view on board even if you disagree with it, that you have played a part in ramping-up the heat and miscommunication somewhat.

Why exactly does our community suck so much at having rational, productive debates? If someone makes a well-intentioned but disagreeable point, why not correct it in a friendly manner instead of becoming terribly offended (or, if it's not particularly important to overall topic - let it slide, perhaps with a small comment). If there seems to be miscommunication, try to at least *present* your reply as if the miscommunication may have been your fault (and hide any exasperation). If the heat starts to rise, instead of fanning the flames, why not instead try douse them with some humour or self-deprecation (which works even when the heat source is at the other keyboard)? etc..

It's probable these tricks do not come naturally and take time to be acquired - having them spelled out may help some people.

Whether the female-anti-factor in free software is down to Aspieness, sexism, heavy metal poisoning due to teething on electronics or whatever combination of those and other factors, who knows - but it seems like we have an even bigger .*-anti-factor thanks to our communication norms.

NB: I hope it's obvious that the above was not meant to attack you personally, but rather to generalise from this thread to help illustrate my general point about communication problems in our community. ;)

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 1:07 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

I really didn't intend to attack Bruce in particular. I wanted to emphasise that while conditions like Asperger's may predispose people towards certain behaviour patterns that are contrary to how I'd like the community to behave, they're not the fundamental cause and they don't provide an absolute excuse for any offence caused as a result.

My concern is that, as a community, we're too focused on acceptance of anyone who fits our model of what a Linux developer should be and are entirely willing to accept multiple character flaws as long as they don't completely prevent someone from fitting into that model. If someone later points out that they're being discouraged from involvement because of that person's behaviour, we're inclined to argue that since the behaviour doesn't conflict with our model then it's acceptable for one reason or another - they've got Asperger's, they're from a different cultural background, they're just like that and don't mean any harm. And when people like Bruce (who is at some level still identifiable as a community leader) make that argument, it makes it sound like we all agree.

I don't think that's helpful. I think we need to accept that the cost of alienating potential contributors is likely to be greater than the cost of asking the more extreme characters we work with to tone down their behaviour. I'd be shocked if any of them are utterly unable to cope, but I'm also entirely prepared to believe that it may be a slow process involving a lot of explicit explanations. That's something I'm willing to bear if the perception is that people think this is a good thing. But it does mean that we need to stop making excuses for people, no matter how high-profile they are. Let them make their own excuses and then judge them appropriately.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 26, 2009 1:33 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

they're from a different cultural background

Ah, good one. E.g. Sino-Asian culture, I guess, would clash particularly badly with the more overtly-confrontational disagreement-resolution culture in free software.

There really do seem to a number of related problems that could be solved through a collective effort to elevate our civility.

OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering

Posted Aug 25, 2009 15:10 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]

> Some of them are high-functioning Asperger's syndrome sufferers and it's not their fault.

I seriously doubt Linus Torvalds is an aspie. I think he's just a dick.