Category: Diversity

The importance of supporting diversity

Categories
Diversity

The Quiet One

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dorothea wrote two related articles recently, The Sickening Grunch and Running with it.

The Sickening Grunch focused on the term ‘sexy’, and the whole scene of being made into a sex object by those who are, bluntly, the product of much in-breeding. Though there is much that I agree with in this article, I am with Andrea in that I have this strong urge to drive up to Madison to sit with Dorothea over a cup of coffee and have a chat about hating one’s body. To me, body and mind are a package deal, and we need to accept and cherish both (and to hell with other’s standards of beauty).

In the second article, Dorothea continues her discussion about a female gaming character that she introduced in the first article, Fechan. She writes a fascinating story about subverting the character when the GM (Gaming Master) decreed that her character was going to be ‘comely’, something Dorothea emphatically didn’t want.

I have more that I want to say about the second essay, but I’m not sure how to say it. So for now, I’ll post the link and pick up this thread a little bit later in the week after I’ve had some time to think on it.

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

No matter what you call it, it’s sexism

Dictionary.com – Sexism: attitudes, conditions, or behavior promoting stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Merriam-Webster Online – Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

 

With regards to the Say what post and the one on Doc screwed the Pooch, I said specific statements were sexist, or more properly, examples of sexism. Why? Because they made generalized statements of social behavior based on sex.

Cute, funny, offhand, stupid, silly, friendly, joking, brilliant, clever, demeaning, exploring, explaining — whatever the basis of the statement, when there is generalization based on sex, this promotes stereotypes in social roles.

Two statements:

 

“…business books are bodice-rippers for men”

“…Oh: when you get tired of all the male kinda shit that seems to comprise 5/4 of the blog world (techblog or warblog… now there’s a sexy selection)…”

 

Someone take these statements and the definitions I provided, and you, specifically, tell me where I’m wrong in saying that both are examples of sexism.

Change in society doesn’t happen through law or proclamation — it’s based on changing social attitudes and behaviors, gradually, over time. It’s each of us becoming aware that we are, directly or indirectly, supporting stereotypes based on race or religion or sex: in our jobs, in our homes and neighborhoods, in our schools, and in our language.

Doc and Halley are terrific people. From their writings they both come across as fun loving, generous, kind, and intelligent. Neither comes across as sexist, and I don’t believe either is. However, no matter how likable they are, no matter how popular they are, no matter how respected they are, they do not get a “get out of being called on what you write ” free card. I sure don’t expect one for myself though in the past I have felt picked on a time or two for my writing, and have become correspondingly whiney in response (not something I’m particularly proud of).

What do we keep telling the major publications about weblogging? That weblogging is interactive, that we catch the mainstream press whenever it’s out of line, incorrect, or irresponsible. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there are few mainstream press publications that would have allowed either of Doc’s or Halley’s statements to pass the editor’s desk. And not because the editors are practicing censorship, but because neither statement is strong enough on its own to justify the sexism implicit in the words.

To explain that last statement, let me use an extreme example. Let me tell you a word: nigger. Chances are when you read this, you recoiled in disgust. Just the use of this word is enough to get books pulled from school shelves and people fired or even prosecuted. Me using it in this weblog posting has probably angered many of you.

Yet as late as a few decades ago, this word was in popular use in much of this country — used freely at work, in our press, in our schools. It took years of awareness and effort, and some people dying, to finally change the social norms enough to make the use of ‘nigger’, and what it implied, reprehensible.

However, as demeaning as this term is, its use in some publications is still acceptable. Why? Because the term is an integral part of telling a story that, ultimately highlights the incorrectness of the environment that fosters this term. Thus, using ‘nigger’ casually in conversation at work is socially unacceptable; however, the use of the term in the book To Kill a Mockingbird is an essential component of the book’s story, a story which ultimately demonstrates the imbalance of justice for blacks in the white dominated South in the time this book is set.

<edit >The point to this example is that if you’re going to use a term that’s racist or sexist (or bigoted), then at least make the use worth something rather than some offhand throwaway remark.</edit>

As I said, that was an extreme example. The context of Doc and Halley’s postings makes their statements innocuous. This is weblogging, for goodness sake! They’re joking around with friends, having a good time. Yes, I should lighten up, laugh the statements off, or ignore them at the least. And if I lived in a society where 50% of the politicians, CEO’s, and technology workers, and so on were women, I would most likely have a really good chuckle right about now. However, I don’t live in this society. In fact, if I remember my numbers correctly, we’re lucky to meet the 20% mark for upper corporate or government positions.

I’m beating a dead posting here. I’m trying to make a point many people won’t get because I’m making it based on the writing of two people who are well liked and respected in the weblogging community. Two people none of us believes is sexist. If I’m going to make a point about sexism, why don’t I find the real sexists in the weblogging community, and go after them?

Because change in a society occurs gradually, over time, with each of us becoming aware that we are, directly or indirectly, supporting stereotypes based on sex: in our jobs, in our homes and neighborhoods, in our schools…

…and in our weblogs.

One last note on this issue, and I’ll stop picking on these nice people and pissing most of you off: In both my postings, I never once said that either Doc or Halley was sexist. Please read what I wrote, and my associated comments. Once you do, please answer me this: exactly who is making generalizations from the writing of the postings to the person’s character? It sure as hell hasn’t been me.

(Doc’s responses to my initial posting: here and here. Halley’s here.)

Postscript: And if anyone wants to pull the link to my weblog from their blogroll because of this posting — or any other of my postings — please do. I will not make any comment about this action. I respect your right to link to me, or not. I must, if I ask your respect for me being able to freely express my opinion.

Categories
Diversity

Jamie and the Reality Test

Regardless of the motives, I think that Jamie Lee Curtis’ recent photo shoot was terrific. She’s showing that in the battle with gravity, gravity ultimately wins. She also shows that it’s time to blow the hell out of our fixation on having perfect bodies.

It’s easy to feel beautiful when the world looks at you in approval because you fit the perfect mold of what is “beautiful”. What a kick to dress sexy, post for provocative photos, flaunt the bod when it’s all there. But what happens when it isn’t all there?

Being beautiful should be based on something more than just our hair color, tight butt, or ripe, ruby red lips. And being fit should be something we do for ourselves, to feel healthy, and to stay active. We shouldn’t have to be fit, or skinny, or have plastic surgery, or dress in certain ways just to meet some vapid person’s approval.

I remember when I was much younger, and much more callow, how I would look at older women and think to myself, look at that hair, those breasts, that stomach. Now I look at my own hair, my own breasts, and my less than firm and ripply belly and send a silent and heartfelt apology to every woman I ever maligned in my jejune thoughts.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have an appointment I need to keep with the treadmill over at the gym. And when I’m finished with my nice, brisk walk, I’m going to indulge in a nice, luscious, calorie laden mocha Tim Tam to go with my coffee.

Categories
Diversity RDF Technology

Outside even among the outsiders

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Warning: Big time rant. Male/Female thing. Read at own risk.

Being a woman trying to find a place among the techie guys isn’t easy, particularly since the areas of technology of interest to me rarely have other women participants. Don’t have to believe me, take a look at the RSS-Dev group, the RDF interest groups, most of the W3C working groups and so on.

Sometimes the group participation has been good. I’m rather partial to the RDF working group because in the newsgroups, they always worked with me. However, in a lot of groups, particularly the RSS-Dev group, I am for the most part ignored. That’s not a lot of fun. It seems no matter what I do, I don’t have the respect of a lot of the players. Not all players — there’s good people here abouts that never ‘held’ me being a woman against me.

(Me not laying down a 100+ lines of code a day they might hold against me, but not being a woman. And I can live with this.)

The seemingly winless battle for respect over the last few years probably accounts for over 50% of my recent burnout. I’m not sure if any of you understand what its like not being sure if the reason you’re ignored in most of these groups is because you’re a woman, or an idiot. I guess I would prefer to think it was because I’m a woman. I seem to do okay on my jobs, and I’ve had some pretty tough technical jobs. But you just don’t know, and it eats at you. All the time. Takes your confidence and just tears it apart.

After I returned from my last trip, I felt renewed and ready to take on challenges again, especially after coming back to be met with the generosity of so many of you, helping me keep this weblog and my sites going. I started my work again with RDF, which I really do love. In particular, I started participating on Internet-related groups again — something I’m more than a bit wary of.

When things got bad at one email group I took the moderator up on his request to start another group, and started Bloggers Unlimited, and it grew. It’s now at 7698 members.

The conversations started out pretty good. There was a quiet time in the middle, but for most part, consistent discussion. It’s a bit too techy for the audience at times, but manageable.

However, I began to notice a distinctive behavior pattern with this group. There was a very strong dominant male presence, which I know left me feeling pushed out of most of the conversations. When the group fell silent for a few days, and then started up again, another member, a male member, was given credit for rejuvenating the group; and here is me, taking quiet pride in thinking I was the one that had sparked it back to life.

What was worse is that most of the comments I made were ignored. I began to feel invisible. The same old feeling of inadequacy. We had some crankiness among the male members a bit early on, but it smoothed out, and the group went back on track. Again, I hoped I helped on this and I suppose this is a nurturing female type of thing, but I didn’t want to be the nurturing female in this one act play.

I started questioning myelf: Is it just me? Am I asking dumb questions?

I decided to get another party’s opinion, and asked Liz today if she noticed this. Was I being paranoid? Did I have a valid concern? She responded with this posting after first giving me heads up and asking if I wanted to respond instead. I declined. Liz wrote:

 

Here’s how the story goes, so far as I can see:

a) Shelley posts an interesting query about the semantic web
b) A discussion begins, with posts from a number of people with interesting ideas
c) Shelley responds with questions and ideas, at the same time that predictable people begin posting predictable rants about predictable topics (RSS, for example. OPML. what constitutes an ad hominem attack. yada, yada, yada.)
d) Shelley’s points are essentially ignored in favor of the same-old-same-old peacocking and posturing among the boys.
e) Shelley gets mad.
f) Shelley gets noticed only because she got mad.
g) People like me unsubscribe because the signal-to-noise ratio is getting worse by the second, and they’d rather read blogs than wade through cross-posts and arguments.

 

I was somewhat relieved to feel vindicated in my read of the group responses, because Liz is not one to call out sexism, either lightly or easily.

On the other hand, though, I was more than a little discouraged to see her comment about me getting mad, because I’ve taken such care on the list not to be mad, to stay calm, even when baited. And I have been baited. Not just in the list but in emails.

Why won’t I take such and such down? Why won’t I hold such and such to task? Well, if I want to be walked on, that’s my problem.

When Liz talked in her posting about rather reading Jeneane and Halley’s comments, I know that she’s making a point about being among people that appreciate each other. And I understand this. However, the impact on me is that I feel left out among both the men and the women. That I have no place with either group.

So where does this leave me?

Most likely bowing out on the groups, though I’m continuing my RDF work here in my weblog, with just my readers who are interested. I most likely will not get involved in any of these groups in the future. I am disappointed at the guys in the list (not all, just some) who seem to have little regard for what I say (and I still have to live with that old worry, now, whether it’s because I’m a woman, or because I’m making stupid comments.)

But I’m also disappointed at the women in the group. Why didn’t they speak out? Why did I have to speak out, alone? Do they know how hard it is to be the only woman talking in these groups?

Where were they when I needed them?

I have some very bad stuff going on in my life now, which I’m not going to talk about here because its deeply personal and, respectfully, lovingly, none of your business. But I don’t have the energy to fight these battles now. I may not ever again in the future.

I’m not walking away from the tech again. I am enjoying my interaction with those who are interested in the RDF Poetry Finder. It may not be sexy lines of code, at least not yet; but this could be the first weblog-based group participation in a project that involves both technical and non-technical people, and it’s a really fun project. At least, I hope so.

When we’re finished, we’ll be able to offer it as a search engine implementation to sites such as Plagiarist and other literature, writing, and poetry related sites. Perhaps even the Guttenberg project. It’s a difference. A small difference, but a difference.

It’s not changing the face of the Web, or even of Google — but it’s a start. It may not be sexy, but it’s doable. I guess when it is up and running, and we can all look back and bask in the glow of our efforts, then that question I have about my worth in technology will be answered. Because it’s not going to get answered in email forums where the women stay silent, and the jerks dominate.

I will say this, though: social software is never going to fly if there isn’t some way to control the peacocks, as Liz called them, and the peahens don’t stop standing in the shadows.

Update:

I hope that the participants in the RDF Poetry Finder are not put off by this posting. Believe me when I say this wasn’t written lightly, and I’m aware it will make people uncomfortable. But it was something I had to say. And, note: I am also aware that I could be wrong in my interpretation — touchy I might be, but at least I try to be honest with myself.

Well, I think.

Categories
Diversity Just Shelley

Older, Taller, Richer, Wiser

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

My divorce has been final for over a year, which means I feel that it’s now “safe” for me to consider dating again. And as much as I think my weblogging male friends are the most wonderful, sexiest, interesting people in the world, I don’t want to snuggle up to a warm monitor on a Saturday night.

Dating again – this is something I haven’t done since I was in my 20’s, and I’m not sure what’s changed since then and now. What are the rules today? Do women ask men out? Who pays? Is the first date too soon for…

…holding hands?

(What did you think I’d say, you nasty minded folk.)

Years ago it was all so much less complicated – women simply followed the older, taller, richer, and wiser rule.

Men are Older

If you’re in a heterosexual relationship, who’s the older – the woman or man? Chances are very good that the man is the older, a trend that transcends cultures.

Back in olden times, the rule of the man being older than the woman made sense; after all, women tended to die younger due to childbirth and attendant complications. Additionally, men were considered unstable when they were younger, and women wanted a man who had “sown the oats” – was ready to settle down and be a good provider, father, and mate.

However, today, women have more control over childbirth and statistically have a longer lifespan than men. In addition, women come into their peak sexually at an older age, men at a younger age.

So, based on these considerations, should I be dating a younger man? Or should I continue with the tried but true older man? How about a man exactly my age?

(Scratch the last one – limiting myself to men who are exactly my age is going to decrease the available selection rather harshly, and being a woman in my 40’s already makes me more likely to be hit by a meteor than to meet someone more intelligent than an amoeba.)

I’m not interested in dating men who are ready to retire to the rocking chair; however, the thought of dating someone much younger leaves me cold. What’s a fair age difference today – plus or minus ten years? Twenty? Should I just be happy that they’re still breathing?

Of course once the issue of age is resolved, next comes…

Men are Taller

As far back as recorded history, men have historically been taller than women – at least within western civilization. Genectic selectivity most likely ensured this as women looked for men who are physically capable of protecting them as well as performing the manual toil necessary to support them.

Of course, as with the issue of age, men being taller – or stronger – than a woman is no longer the necessity it once was. Who needs protection through a man when one has a warm gun, to quote the Beatles. Still, old habits die hard.

Now, height isn’t necessarily as much of an issue as age because the average height of a woman is 5’8″ tall, the average height of a man is 5’10”. However, this is changing. Over the last two generations the average height for men has remained relatively stable while women’s has been increasing. The Age of the Amazon is upon us.

Of course, with me, the Age of the Amazon is already here – I’m 5’11” tall. In other words, I’m taller than the average guy. (Please, no jokes such as, “How’s the rain up there” – I’ve been known to spit on people and say “Not bad. How is it down there?”)

Rather than lurking about professional Basketball player locker rooms, I decided to do away with the “man must be taller” years ago. Just too many interesting guys who were shorter than me. Of course, the gentleman in question must also be beyond worries and considerations of being shorter than the woman – I wonder if this is more likely than me being hit by a meteor?

Men are Richer

When I was younger, the thing among us young babes was to marry a “successful” young man someday, have 2 kids, station wagon, dogs, the whole bit. Then we got older, and a hell of a lot smarter, but the image of “marrying success” still seems to linger here and there in and amidst different cultures.

The necessity of marrying well is very understandable when you consider that in the US, as with most countries, women were restricted in regards to profession as well as ownership of property. For the most part, women worked as teachers, maids, or prostitutes. Additionally, women were considered property of father, brother, or husband. If a woman had wealth through her father, it became the property of her husband when they married, or was managed by a male relative if the woman was single.

The best a woman could hope for was marrying a man who didn’t beat her, who could support her and the children, and didn’t screw around in front of her.

As the song says, the times they are a changing. Now both men and women look to marry well so that they can have twin BMWs parked in the driveway to impress the neighbors.

For myself, I’d rather date a man who’s interesting and fun to talk to than one who’s rich. And I’m more than willing to pay my own way on a date – as long as the guy assures me that we won’t be hit by a meteor while we’re out and about.

Men are Wiser

Discussing the classic work, The Tale of Genji, Jonathon writes:

Genji’s friend To-no-Chujo tells of a lover who bore him a daughter but who, ironically, lost his affection through being too meek and accommodating. The ideal woman, they conclude, “does not try to display her scanty knowledge in full,” nor does she “scribble off Chinese characters,” rather she shows taste and restraint and is prepared to “feign a little ignorance.”

A thousand years later, and not a lot has changed – the concept of dumbing down in order to attract guys was far too common when I was in school; the fact that women are disproportionally under-represented in the hard sciences today leads me to believe that this nasty little rule still lurks about.

Frankly, I’d rather curl up against a warm monitor for the rest of my life than to dumb down to attract a guy. End of story on this one.

So…

Since the reliable older, taller, richer, and wiser rule just doesn’t work for me, I guess I’ll have to settle for dating people because of who they are rather than what category they fall into. It may not be as simple, but at least it promises not to be boring.

Of course, I could always get hit by a meteor, first.