On 01/14/2012 12:20 PM, Matt Giuca wrote:
With all due respect, I think these articles which talk about sexism and racism still existing in some 'underlying' manner are nothing more than puff pieces designed to justify the livelihoods of people who making a living combating this.
By maintaining there is a problem, you can then still rely on money coming in to 'fight it'. I will bet London to a brick on the fact that as long as someone will get published, paid or recognised for this sort of thing, there will be people writing about how we still got a bit of a way to go.
There may be some truth to that, but there is no doubt that racism and sexism are still problems, at least in some (I would suggest, many) communities. You seem to be implying that someone got paid to write that article. I had assumed it was just a disgruntled member of the free software community who spent some time writing down their thoughts. There doesn't have to be an ulterior motive to everything.
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
I'm saying that there is money and recognition to be made through this sort of activism, and that people who may write for scientific American along these lines know that. Certainly there are people who DO make a living pushing social issues, and others who make an academic career from it. I've had experience in community politics and there is usually a larger number of men. The difference gets more pronounced the more political the movement. That is, a local community group trying to save a particular park will be roughly equal, but when it gets more ideological, the split widens. All you can do, is make sure there are no barriers, but I think sometimes efforts to equalise things tend to start treating women as a resource to be acquired, as if they serve as examples as to how 'correct' a group is. A bit like how some companies 'advertise' their diversity, this objectifies people all the same.