Re: debian and women? from DWN #10
On 2004-03-25, Kent West penned:
>>
> Wow! I must be a throwback to the 1950's. All these answers from guys
> sound so politically correct to me.
Politically correct, honest -- take your pick =)
> My remembrance of Monique's first post and my first response was that
> I gave my best effort at an answer, in a polite and business-like way,
> immediately followed by (or perhaps preceded by -- I don't recall)
> some sort of comment like "Oh wow! A girl and a geek! Whoo-hoo!".
The key part was the effort at answering =) I don't mind it when people
notice my female-ness; I do mind it when that awareness stops any other
mental processes.
> In other words, I notice women. I notice them in the hallway at work.
> I notice them on this list. I notice them at the grocery store. And if
> they catch my attention (usually first and foremost in a physical
> way), I'll often make some sort of comment ("I really like your hair",
> "You have a great smile", "You need to tell your husband that men in
> the grocery store still notice how pretty you are and that he needs to
> appreciate you more."), but it's never an overly offensive (I hope)
> comment, like "Nice butt", or "I'd like to get to know you, if you
> know what I mean nudge nudge wink wink". That sort of thing is highly
> offensive even to me.
I think you'd have to be incredibly smooth to pull off that "husband"
line without sounding like a jerk.
Me, I'd rather not have strangers comment on my looks. Coworkers
either, unless they have also become friends. In my opinion, you just
can't tell if a person is the type to appreciate the comment or the type
to be indignant, and so you're better off not opening your mouth.
> Now, having noticed the woman, that does not in any way diminish my
> respect for them. As a general rule, women are different from men, so
> I don't expect them to enjoy technology the way most guys do, and I do
> expect them to ooh and ah over the latest cosmetics magazine
> (http://www.marykay.com/njlove - shameless plug), and would love to
> get some flowers from their men (whereas most men getting flowers
> would think, "um, okay"). But just because women are different than
> men (as a general rule) doesn't make them any less smart or capable.
> The women in my immediate life tend to be incredibly smart.
Actually, whenever I've sent flowers to a guy, they've been quite
impressed. In college, I had red roses delivered to my then-bf's dorm,
and his whole hall was envious of him for having such a cool gf. So
maybe this is a generational thing? (No idea how old you are; just a
thought from your 1950s comment above.)
WTF is that mary kay site? Whatever it is, it refuses to let me in
because I'm using Firefox.
> Someone in this thread posted a link to an article (not Monique's
> reference), and the woman basically said women don't get involved in
> technology because men treat them differently (and that "differently"
> basically translated into rude catcalls), but I don't buy that. I do
> buy that women get treated differently than men (after all, I proved
> the point, at least in my case, a few paragraphs above). I think women
> aren't well-represented numerically in the technical fields because
> women in general don't enjoy the technical fields. It's not because
> they're less capable or because they get treated like this or like
> that; it's because they don't, in general, have the aptitude/interest,
> just like a male architect or a male brain surgeon might not have the
> aptitude/interest for the tech field.
I think you're simplifying things a whole lot, and if you're referring
to the link to which I think you're referring, I don't think you read it
very carefully. But maybe you're referring to a totally different link,
so who knows.
There's a difference between being active in a field and being
well-represented in the community. Just because you don't see a lot of
women posting on technical sites does not mean that they aren't involved
in technical pursuits. Don't confuse a willingness to speak up with
existence. There's also the whole nature vs. nurture thing. If
(generalization) women don't tend to go for technical fields because
they're inherently less interested, that's just a personal choice thing.
But if they're doing this because they were brought up to believe that
"math is hard," barbie-style, that *is* a problem.
There was a bit of a blurb in a philosophy of physics class I took about
feminist science, which as near as I can tell boils down to the idea
that your background will influence your observations, your
explanations, etc. I think there's some validity to this, and for this
reason I think it's a good thing to have as much variety as possible in
any project or community.
> As far as Monique's reference, I think the poster is correct that
> women who deal with Debian (or other male-dominated fields) will feel
> like the men don't think they can cut it (although that feeling is
> based on perception and not necessarily reality). Partly this stems
> from the stereotype we get from TV, etc, that men are male chauvinist
> pigs. But I think a lot of it stems from the fact that most men do
> respond to women first as women, and secondly as peers.
And I, at least, would rather you treat me as a peer first. I'm not
even sure what it means to treat women first as women, actually, either
in person or in these lists. How does one treat a woman this way? If
you mean things like going out of your way not to curse, trying to hold
my bags for me, etc, please spare me! Outside of the dating scene and
maybe someone who is visibly pregnant, why would you treat women any
differently than men?
> I can't speak for any other men, but I myself first think of Monique
> as a woman (and I've picked up the hints that she's married - D'oh!),
> and after getting past that (and to be honest, I don't know that I
> ever really get entirely past that), I think that she's a smart
> person, and she adds a lot of value to this list, and I'm glad she's
> here.
Actually, I won't be married till Monday -- meaning that after today, my
participation in this conversation will be greatly curtailed -- I'll be
busy with family, getting married, and that whole honeymoon thing for a
bit.
I'm glad I'm here, too, and I'm glad you're here, and to be honest your
thinking of me as a "woman first" hasn't really impacted our
interactions, so I guess it hasn't harmed anything. Though it's
conceptually weird to me.
> So flame me now for my chauvinist ways. I like the fact that women are
> women, and if they have a technical streak to them, it's all the
> better. And if I'm offensive when I deal with women, I'll apologize
> when I'm made aware of it, and I'll try to do better, but I guarantee
> that I'll always be likely to be offensive again, because I'll always
> notice that a woman is a woman (well, except maybe for Pat (Saturday
> Night Live reference from a decade or so ago)).
--
monique
Reply to: