Hi all,
I think that Dennis K raised a good point, which I'd like to clarify.
As far as we know, the gap between women in open source development and
closed-source development is something like 1.5% (some estimate 5%) versus
28%, which everyone would agree is concerningly low. Even if it were 10%
versus 28% it would still be huge gap.
Whatever they're doing in the proprietary software development, we can't
deny that it's working for them.
But 28% is nowhere near parity, and it raises the question of whether 50/50
is a realistic goal. There are huge differences in participation rates in
other professions -- teaching, nursing, engineering, mathematics. Even if
this difference *is* due to culturally embedded attitudes, well, we live in
this culture and that's our reality. We can't change society at large.
However, we can effect change in our own movement, and as Dennis K is right
to point out, focusing on the number of women in our movement can itself be
sexist. As Val Henson rightly says, "Do treat women as normal people."
Well, normal people are not recruited to make up the numbers.
Far more importantly than how many women there are in open source is *how
happy the women in open source are*. Even if 28% women is the very highest
participation rate we can get, given the society we live, our goal should
be that the women in open source get to feel safe and included in our
movement.
Alex Garber
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 14:02, Dennis K
On 01/15/2012 01:15 PM, Ben Sturmfels wrote:
On 15/01/12 12:42, Dennis K wrote:
I never said there was no sexism at all. Obviously, such things like sexism and racism, do exist. I did say however, that even if they didn't really exist in certain areas, there is a vested interest in combating it, as some people professionally do this. No one will act in a manner which renders their profession, or field of study obsolete or unneeded. People will also construct problems in a way which makes them the arbitrators of solutions. Everyone does this.
Dennis, I have no doubt your comments are well intentioned. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but please tread carefully.
Regardless of what you mean, generalisations can easily derail the discussion. Especially over email where we lack tone of voice and body language.
Regards, Ben
______________________________**_________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.**softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.**com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-** software-melbhttp://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb I understand it's a sensitive issue. In a nutshell, I'm saying that individuals who themselves aren't discriminatory fall into the trap of acting in a discriminatory manner when they define correct behaviour and correct outcomes by another's standard other than their own. This can undermine their efforts to encourage certain people to participate.
______________________________**_________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.**softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.**com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-** software-melbhttp://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb