Category: Diversity

The importance of supporting diversity

Categories
Diversity

New Voices

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

New voices are entering the discussion on feminism and girlism. Brave souls.

AKMA has joined the conversation, but carefully, aware that the discussion related to this topic has achieved a level of emotion and engagement that transcends previous topics:

One reason I haven’t joined in earlier lies in my fondness for everyone in the room, and my sense that I can see the admirable heart in what each one says, whether or not they’re on the same page as me. And it’s awfully hard to enter this sort of discussion without treading on some toes that already ache from others’ stomping.

As one who has participated in the tromping as well as being a trompee, I can understand AKMA’s caution. There is something about this topic that seems to touch the core of us, generating strong agreement or disagreement, but not indifference. Perhaps its because men and women remain men and women, with all the age-old complications, confusion, and concerns, regardless of socio-politico events.

I almost wrote David Weinberger to ask him, “Well, David. Here’s your pieces. Now where’s the glue?”

But AKMA does discuss the issue, albeit being careful to separate the message from the messenger (to quote one of the comments to my posts) and talks about the effects of girlism:

Effect One: it severs women who can and will use this tactic from those who don’t have access to that tactic. I get very edgy about strategies of resistance that engender division; we don’t have to look far, though, to see that girlism doesn’t only advance the cause of “girlists,” but distinguishes “girlist”-women from “non-girlist-women” (and that can pretty quickly be elided to “fun, cool” women versus “uptight, bitchy” women). Effect Two: girlism tends to reinforce men’s latent notions that women are there principally to titillate and delight them. Lots of fascinating women (whom no one has grounds to assume sexually inhibited, though I can’t claim empirical research on this point) don’t want to go anywhere near re-affirming the Playboy Bunny image that haunts men’s expectations of what women should be like.

As somewhat of a directly unrelated counter-point, the second person to join the debate today (that I know of ), Elizabeth Lawley, writes:

I spoke up in defense of Halley’s original post, and I stand by that. I consider myself a feminist. Unlike Halley, I don’t think feminism is dead. And I definitely don’t agree with her assessment that it only encompassed lesbian sexuality to begin with. But one of the reasons that I–and, I think, many other women–have become frustrated with feminism is its renouncement of…well…femininity.

In Shelley’s blog, she reposts and comments on comments by Suzanne, in which she expresses concerns with “girlism” because it’s limited to those with the physical attributes to use it. But all strengths, all power, is unbalanced. Some women aren’t beautiful, true. (Though far more are than realize it.) But some women aren’t smart. Some women aren’t hard-working. Some women aren’t charismatic. Life’s just not fair.

I respect Liz’s reaffirmation of feminism, and appreciate it. However, my opinion diverges from her’s when the discussion returns to ‘girlism’ (if I may continue to use the original term). To me, the argument against Elizabeth’s assertions is actually contained within her argument. How can we equate hard-working, a state a woman can control completely, with beauty, a state that is not only outside a woman’s control, but is also ephemeral and changeable based on society, culture, and era? In some ways this forms the basis of the feminism/girlism debate — control from within (feminism) versus control from without (girlism). I’ll bank on control from within, myself. It’ll last me when gravity finally wins all.

(As a side note, it is a puzzle to me where the confusion arose about feminists not being feminine; unless you equate femininity as being derived only from a male consumers point of view.)

I can respect that Elizabeth has worked hard to develop a body that she’s proud of. And she should be proud, it’s not easy maintaining the discipline to keep yourself in shape. I knew a quadraplegic at Boeing that worked equally hard with his body to be able to lift a finger to control a computer console we were designing for him. I can respect hard work.

But when Elizabeth writes:

The men who tended to view me as an object were flummoxed. And I was okay with that. More than okay–delighted. I loved watching people who had no problem ignoring me (or worse) when I felt like a shlump caught so suddenly off guard.

I am unsure how to respond, except that I know I would not experience delight if someone who previously treated me with disregard and disdain suddenly started noticing me because I had a body that they now found acceptable.

One last thing before closing today’s post, and this message is specifically aimed at Doc — but in the friendliest non aggressive, non-attacking, non-categorizing way I possibly can:

Doc, personally, I don’t care what you call either feminism or sexism, as long as we’re all agreed that something is about discrimination based on gender, and something else is based on the continuing effort to ensure equality, safety, and control of one’s body for all women. However, you might want to consider leaving the labels, because it’s a lot easier writing them out rather than the definitions each time we discuss the topics*.

Regardless, if the label seems too constricting, then we’ll change them and see if we can get the world to agree. Or we’ll continue to use the definitions, instead. As long as you agree that the important thing is what the labels represent, not the labels, themselves.

And one other note: I have said this before, more than once, but I will say it again. I respect Halley’s opinion and her courage in expressing this opinion. Because I don’t agree with the words, doesn’t mean I don’t value the speaker. If I am vehement on this topic, it’s because it impacts on my core beliefs about being a woman, not because I am ‘angry’ at Halley, or at anyone who agrees with her opinion. Halley should be proud that her words started what has become an incredible conversation.

Just a quick note, for what it’s worth.

Now, it’s been a long, long, long day, and this tired, unsexy, unfun, roughshod riding, unloving, toe-trodden, anti-male, non-girlist feminst (or whatever) is going to bed.

* This is my last posting on this topic for this go-around. I don’t think I would have anything new to contribute to the dialog that I haven’t already said — in excessive detail.

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Hedgehog

Commenting and cross-commenting associated with Mike Golby’s posting. Lots of words to get to core of the matter: Mike wants to discuss the issues without someone experiencing personal affront. He says that I am being defensive. I rant and rail and point and link until I slow down (hitting a wall does tend to slow you down) and realize…damn…

Yup. I have become a hedgehog of defensiveness, rolled up into a cute but painful little ball, spikes out, bitty nose buried, gleaming little eyes looking up as if to say, “You can kiss my spiny butt.” Just be glad I’m not licking your shoes and foaming at the mouth.

It is very difficult to discuss issues such as gender bias, stereotypes, and sexism without internalizing the discussion. I have long admired those who can discuss even the most vitriolic topic in calm, measured words. I can’t. I have a tough time just convincing people I’m being passionate, not angry.

The difficulty inherent with some of these discussions is that the comment boxes aren’t big enough to handle all the baggage we bring with us. There’s barely enough room to move. Worse, we can’t look each other in the eyes to know when to press forward, and when to pull back. Quickly.

Adding to the challenge is that the conversation can continue off-weblog, flurry of emails and exchanges becoming increasingly angry passionate.

You, innocent reader, see the tip of the discussion and can’t understand why something so small can be so deadly. You wonder in trustingly, open your mouth, issue a tiny squeek, and WHOMP!

You have just been overreacted.

Poor you. You get up and check yourself for injury, wipe the blood from your eyes, and, shivering from shock, crawl away, trying to move carefully so that your movements don’t attract further attention. A whimper issues from your mouth as you vanish from the weblog page. Not a pretty sight.

Sometimes when we feel very strongly about something, it’s challenging not to get angry passionate. Passion is great to start the fire (“we didn’t start the fire..”) but it’s hell on the participants over time.

Mike has questions to answer and this topic of gender stereotypes and bias, sexism and sex discrimination is worth discussing. Tish wrote an excellent, detailed response to Mike’s question.

(Is it just me and my hedgehog nature, or are Mike’s questions a tad bit loaded?)

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Girlism Redux

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Mike Golby wrote a posting that asks several very complex questions, leading to one stated goal: he wants to understand why I (and Dorothea) fight these battles about sexism and gender bias and equality, such as the one about girlism this week.

I’m not asking these questions because I have nothing better to do. I want answers because these questions are there and they constitute obstacles to my understanding what is irking two of my friends, Shell and Dorothea. In other words, while I understand that I might come across as sexist and that view will be ‘me’ in the eyes of others, I feel something of their pain and want to know what I can do to ease it

I don’t believe there is an answer that I can give Mike, other than to point to what I have written. If in these postings he hasn’t found the answer, then nothing further I can write will provide any additional clarification. Or justification. Perhaps the only answer is there is no answer because the issue is less about understanding and more about acceptance. I can say that I don’t write on these issues lightly.

If this is the brave new medium we keep telling each other it is, then each of us must celebrate it in our own way, and this means writing about what is important to each of us. These issues are important to me.

When Halley wrote the following, it was something I could not ignore:

It’s “girlism” — women want to be sexy girls and use all the tricks girls use. Crying, flirting, begging, winking, stomping their feet when they don’t get their way, general trotting around showing off their long legs and whatever else they decide to show off thereby distracting and derailing men.

Stealing the phrase from Mike, I didn’t respond to Halley’s writing because I had nothing better to do. I waited for three days hoping someone else would respond because I knew writing about it could possibly generate tension. In the end, when I saw no one else commenting, I did so because the behavior Halley attributes to generic Woman can be generalized to fit all women, and that means me. And this type of behavior, as described, violates every bit of honor and pride in being a woman that I have. It violates every bit of honor and pride in being a woman of all women I know.

Mike, in your weblog posting you seem to wonder what the harm is in comments such as Halley’s or in stereotypes, and to question why women and gays fight so strongly against them and for our “rights”. To paraphrase you, aren’t we isolating ourselves by our actions?

In response all I can say is that generalizations based on class or gender membership, stereotypes, bias, bigotry, and racism are not acceptable, in deed or by word. After all, human history has shown the harm that “words” can cause. As for needing to fight for rights, in this country it is still illegal in some states to be gay and it is deadly in other countries. Being gay is still condemned in many major religions, including the Catholic religion. I don’t even need to go into the fight women still have for equality, both in my country, and in the world. Women have to fight, even in a modern country such as the United States, just to keep the right to have an abortion by some means other than on her back on a kitchen table being stabbed with a coat hanger.

Equality, fairness, won’t be given — they have to be taken.

What would you have us do? Wait for the alpha male to tell us “Oh, today you no longer have to bare your throat, we are now equal and you can do as you please”?

One of the most oft quoted phrases I see is David Weinberger’s we are writing ourselves into existence. When I searched on this, I found the following:

“This is exactly what I think is happening with blogging, we are finding voices that will ultimately make us new selves, or as David Weinberger likes to say, “we are writing ourselves into existence.” If Gilligan is right and we’re witnessing the end of patriarchy, the fresh honest style of blogging by both women and men will certainly hasten its demise.”

 

Halley’s Comments

 

“The importance of the weblog phenomenon isn’t so much that it enables people to publish their breakfast menus or even their genuine insights. It’s that we now know what our “avatars” on the Net are going to be: not graphical cartoon representations but our body of writing. You are what you write. On the Web we are writing ourselves into existence. This introduces into the self the same issues of control, inspiration, invention, deception and play as have always been present in the relationship of authors to what they write.”

David Weinberger

 

“I think Dave’s right on with this, and I think we can take it one step further, and a hyperlinked thought it is: As our fingers wind around the keyboard sketching our online selves–filling in the furrows, the wrinkles, the gleam, the raised eybrow as we go–that avatar we create *recreates* us in the offline world. It is a circle of creation and recreation. That is the joy in it for me–not so much the voice, the self I have created through blogging, but how that unleashed voice is transforming me, the person, the flesh and the mind.”

 

Jeneane Sessum

 

“As human beings, we are different people. This is where words can hit like hammers. As hearts and minds sharing Web space, I think we understand and know each other. Yet here, on the Web, our words carry even greater weight. ‘We are writing ourselves into existence.’ We do so on delicate, butterfly wings. It is here that words either fly or die.'”

 

Mike Golby

If we are truly writing ourselves into existence, then we have to accept the fact that our existences may not always overlap. And we’re going to need to learn how to respect this.

This is the last posting on the ‘girlism’ topic I’m going to write. To continue is to belabor the issue, as well as seeming to beat Halley about the head with her words, which was never the intent of any of my writing on this subject. If anything, after reading so many of the thoughtful posts, I am deeply grateful that Halley brought this subject up. But enough’s enough.

Mike, I did a poor job at answering your questions, but I can’t answer for the world at large — why do we do this or why do we do that. All I can answer is why I write as I do. We each have our own windmills to tilt at, and we don’t all share the same friends or foes. At times the only thing we share is the truth of our words, and the passion of our beliefs.

(And again, I have probably taken this all too seriously. After all, this is only weblogging.)

Categories
Diversity Technology

Women in computing

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

In the comments attached to the Girlism post, an Assistant Professor of Computer Technology, Dr. Elizabeth Lane Lawley mentioned effort at Carnegie-Mellon to understand why there is such a large discrepancy based on gender in the computer sciences. I found a web site devote to this project and have been spending some time reading publications associated with the work.

The publications have been a revelation, not because I don’t know first hand what they’re discussing, but because I’m reading someone articulating my experiences. For the first time, I don’t feel alone in many of my own observations about the field, and my own position within it.

For instance, one publication, Undergraduate Women in Computer Science: Experience, Motivation, and Culture mentioned that women had significantly less experience with computers prior to attending college then men. However, what was surprising was that this lack of prior experience didn’t impact on their ability to do the work in the classes:

“Despite this difference in how students evaluate themselves, there is a gap between women’s perceived ability and their actual performance. Despite their modest estimates of their own standing in the class, three out of the seven first-year students made the Dean’s List (which turned out to be about the top third of the class) in the first semester, and six of the seven women made a B or A average for the first year.”

I was a law student when I started college. The philosophy teacher that taught my logic class strongly recommended I try a computing class so, for grins and giggles, I signed up for a VMS Basic programming class. My only experience with computers prior was through issues of Popular Science (borrowed from a neighbor), filling in the computer worksheets for an insurance company when I was an underwriter, and handling the strange data entry machine at the real estate company I worked at as a secretary.

However, after the first week in the class, I switched over to computer science and never looked back. Matching the results of the women in the study, I ended up a Dean’s Scholar, ranking 3rd in a graduating class of 27 students. And this was with me being a double major, studying Psychology at the same time.

According to the paper, female students were made aware of their experiential differences from the male students, and this undermined their confidence, generating feelings of self-doubt, isolation, and inadequacy. This, in spite of women performing as well or better than the men.

Now there are some major differences between when I went to college and the experiences of the women in the reports. Perhaps because the field of computer science (as separate from engineering) was relatively new, and personal computers were quite rare, many of the men in the class had as little prior experience as the women. In addition, the professors came from a diverse background: math, philosopy, and english literature in addition to engineering. This mix helped diffuse the typical arrogance associated with engineering, which I think made the environment much less competitive than current computer science environments.

Whatever the reason, I know the environment at my school was supportive and free of gender bias or differentiation. I only know now how lucky I was then. Still, my luck was to run out once I hit the ‘real world’.

Women students were faced with male students saying, “you’re a computer science student, you should know this” quite frequently, enhancing feelings of inadequacy and isolation. The reports mention how women’s isolation in the field continues into the workplace, it not being uncommon to have a man say something along the lines of “You have a degree in computer science. You should know this.”

I have had this happen to me not once, but several times, and each time my own self confidence erodes, and I become increasingly defensive. Yet, I’ve never once not been able to keep up with, or exceed, the production of the men I work with.

This does beg the question: why do men say something such as “you should know this”? This is really nothing more than a non-productive putdown. Perhaps women should be taught to say in response, “Because I learned other things you don’t know, dickhead.”

The report and others also highlighted a significant difference between women and men in how each views computing in their lives. To sum it up: Women program for purpose, men program just to program. There is a great deal of conjecture that believes this goes all the way back to our earliest years and our use of tools, or not.

For myself, when I was a girl scout years ago, we were taught how to cook and how to sew; boys were taught wood working and mechanics. This continued into school, with girls getting Home Ec and boys getting Woodshop. Girls worked with pots and pans to make a meal, or a sewing machine to make a dress. Boys worked with a variety of tools and gadgets, making a variety of different things, some practical, some not.

Now, I am assuming that times they have changed. Still, according to the reports at the C-M site, boys are more likely to spend time tweaking around on the computer then girls, while girls are more likely to spend time making something on the computer. Boys want to figure out why something works as it does, girls just want to make it work.

Is this difference a product of our genes? Is there a ‘tweak’ gene that boys have and girls don’t? Or is the fact that little girls are raised to be producers, and boys are raised to be innovators?

So many good questions raised. I can’t tell you how much I recommend that you all read these reports, regardless of your field. And my deepest and most sincere gratitude to Liz for pointing these out.

Categories
Diversity

Shutting down the conversation

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

What’s particularly difficult about writing something such as my posting Girlism? is seeing the gentlemen in the community linking to Halley’s post, but not my refutation. Huzzahs for Halley’s refreshing honesty and blowing the lid off the terrible games we women play.

Perpetuating the myth by controlling the links, and thereby controlling the discussion. Well done. Is this another lesson we women should learn?

But then, I’m picking on Halley with my posting, aren’t I? And members of the same community are not supposed to do this. We either agree, or stay silent. Another lesson to learn.

Why are more women’s voices not heard in technology? Because men control technology’s voice. I guess the same could be said for weblogging.

Update: Thankfully, the conversation is starting up again, which is what I really was hoping for. I knew there had to be other voices with something to say on this issue. See Elaine, Steve, Dorothea, Mike, and Jen. And associated comments attached to all the postings.

Second Update And Sam! Of course, Sam! Sam, who is the first official member of Burningbird’s Anonymous! I would never forget to link to Sam. Nah uh. Not me.