Hi Matt,
Thanks for setting the record straight, at least amongst those who are willing to give you a fair hearing.
It's pretty sad that in a space where our motto is "Free as in speech", you can be denounced for making fair comments and asking legitimate questions.
Maybe, in the interest of clarity, we should adopt a policy of starting a new thread if we have a different line of inquiry from the original posts. That seems pretty fair. If my question is the wrong one (presumably for this specific line of inquiry), then I think a civil response would be, "Start a new thread, please: we're trying to focus on the question at hand."
However, Russell, your responses give me the distinct feeling that my questioning is not so much out of place but is rather dangerous, or dare I say it, heretical.
The silly thing is that we're in perfect agreement that sexism is to be repudiated, and we should do our best to ensure that all members feel welcome and respected.
Unfortunately, your responses to my posts make me feel particularly unwelcome and disrespected even though I have shown nothing but respect and goodwill to everyone else on the thread, including you. My disgruntlement is as legitimate as anyone else's.
I haven't got anything further to add to the discussion itself, so thanks to everyone who has followed this thread and responded to my posts. I'll leave you guys to it.
Alex Garber
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:12, Matt Giuca
<matt.giuca@gmail.com> wrote:
The tone of this thread is becoming very accusatory towards men. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm all for treating women (and all people) with respect. But that respect has to go both ways, and a lot of the opinions I'm reading (including the shakespearessister link that Russell keeps bringing up) are making some pretty nasty generalisations of men. Of course they carry the obligatory "not all men, of course". But I'm starting to feel like I'm being accused of misogyny on behalf of my gender. And because I'm with the majority gender, apparently I'm not allowed to feel victimised by this.
The gist of the shakespearessister article was: "men in general are misogynistic -- not all men, of course, but that's generally how they behave unless they control themselves." Now a sentence like that tends to garner nods of approval and women saying "yeah, that happens to me" and men saying "mm yes, I had better watch myself." But I think I would be smacked down very hard if I wrote any sentence of the form: "women in general are _____ -- not all women, of course, but that's generally how they behave unless they control themselves."
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Russell Coker
<russell+lists@coker.com.au> wrote:
Could ALL the men on this list please read the above blog post, particularly
paragraph 11 onwards. If you start reading the post and think for a moment
that it doesn't mean you then IT REALLY MEANS YOU.
So this REALLY APPLIES to all males then? If you think you aren't misogynistic, then you're wrong: all males are.
So unless everybody agrees with your point of view, this measured discussion on gender issues in computing will warrant a sexual harassment incident? You're turning this into a very hostile discussion indeed.
Such discussions give women good reason to fear for their safety.
And blowing it way out of proportion. Again: I'm not saying it wasn't inappropriate (and I don't know all the details of this incident), but are you suggesting that episodes like a presentation featuring a pornographic image might actually cause women to fear they might be raped if they attend a Linux conference?
As you apparently didn't read the above the first time I cited it I've pasted
in paragraphs 11 and 12 to make it even easier for you to read it.
Don't assume that people didn't read your links just because they didn't respond to every point. You're posting a lot of links.
I'm not sure what the point of paragraphs 11 and 12 are. Yes, we should expect women to take it personally when we are debating about women's rights. But is this a call to arms against any intellectual debate on the matter? It seems to be saying that it's insulting to try and use logic in such a discussion, because the topic is inherently emotional, and that a man's opinion is not relevant to the discussion (the sarcastic "it merely provides a different perspective" implies that actually, being a man isn't just a different perspective, it's a much less valid one). At that point, I feel explicitly excluded from the debate, because I apparently can't understand the issue.
So far, I have seen a bunch of anecdotes about women being abused in free software discussions -- which is bad, and should be discouraged. But I still think it's unfair to a) blame these episodes (which are bound to happen in any large community) on the attitudes of "all men", and b) start talking about ratios and blame the low female:male ratio on this general widespread mistreatment of women. I'm just trying to avoid having this discussion be about vilification of men in general because of how we apparently treat women.
If women aren't coming along to specific free software events because of the way specific men in those groups treat them, then that is a problem where the behaviour of certain men can and needs to be rectified. If women aren't coming along to specific free software events simply because there aren't enough other women at those events, then that's also a problem, but it isn't a behavioural problem or a problem with men or a problem that is easy to fix. That isn't a problem that can be "blamed" on any particular group, it's just what's happening.
If I've done, or do, any specific thing that is considered inappropriate behaviour, then please let me know. But otherwise, I do not want to be vilified on behalf of my gender.
Matt
_______________________________________________
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb