> > >>>As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the > > >>>most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most > > >>>contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is > > >>>likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I > > >>>don't know) as well as, indirectly or not, some men. (And quite stunningly failing to realise that objecting to this package in this manner is equally offensive in the other direction, and probably more so. I'm always entertained by the hypocrisy of these people). > > > Packages can hurts feelings? It's your big conclusion about it? Don't > > > matters for you the obvious detail about gender equality? > > > > requiring gender equality is obviosly pretty damn sexist. > > I can't see why. The whole free software concept brings an idea of > giving equal oportunities to everyone. How is it "equal opportunities" to say: "You can't do that unless you also find a woman who's willing to do it as well"? > Fortunately, as I said, the code > is available, and the equal oportunity for adding pictures that taste > good for each one actually do exist. > > That does not solve the problem, but makes it pretty easy to solve. The problem doesn't exist. There is no absence of opportunity here. There is only absence of action from some parties. Just because you elect not to engage in an action doesn't mean you can claim that nobody else should engage in that action. Not even under some misguided notion of "equality". If somebody was saying "We can have pictures of naked girls in the archive, but not naked men" then you *might* have a valid point. But they aren't. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature