An Open Letter to the Open Source Community

[Tristan Wibberley]

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 16:32 -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> The responses this thread has generated demonstrate that there IS
> indeed a problem with the way people <ahem, men, by-and-large> respond
> to any mention of sexism.

There is simply a difference in what people consider to be sexism and
what people consider to be normal social interaction. I am suggesting
that the levels of sexual talk and gender-comparative banter from the
men in this community is fairly normal but that it is being concentrated
on an abnormally small number of women making it upsetting and sometimes
distressing.

To see normal at work go to a popular pub for 18-30s. There is a roughly
equal number of each of the two most common genders yet the amount of
sexual talk and gender-comparative banter is huge, and on both sides,
even though pubs aren't there just for courtship.

> > If you put a hand-full of men into a chat-room full of a diverse
> > selection of single women he'll be bombarded with suggestive comments
> > just as women are in a chat-room (or mailing list) full of a diverse
> > selection of single men.
> 
> If the chat room is explicitly set up for male-female sexual/courtship
> interactions, perhaps!

Maybe I've just been lucky then.


> > The problem is not that men think of women in a way that women do not
> > think of men, causing them to act in a sexist way (although there are of
> > course some of those). The problem is that men and women do not converse
> > in the same way and due to the disparity in population in these forums
> > women end up taking more sexual pressure and gender-related banter than
> > feels right and comfortable. If the populations were more "natural" that
> > pressure wouldn't be there and it would go both ways in equal measure
> > just as in every other walk of life where it is normally regarded as a
> > bit of fun by both sexes. Hell, in the absence of women men make
> > comments to each other that are far more suggestive than anything they
> > would say to a woman - for example "while you're down there" is my
> > personal favourite.
> 
> This is all context-specific. In your personal life your friends are
> aware of your sense of humour. On the anonymous internet, people are
> not. Nuance or humour is lost very easily unless one is very careful
> and articulate (and, few people are).

Nuance and humour are normal and speakers are not going to be able to
act specially because the person on the other end can't see their eyes.
You cannot re-engineer millenia of evolution so easily, you can only try
to get the balance of genders closer to what we evolved with.


> In a group of men "chumming around" those comments are common. In a
> group of men and women chumming around those comments may be
> acceptable, DEPENDING on the character of the participants.

Which you only find out by chumming around, getting told that it was too
far for the other person, then apologising.


> In
> "professional" or public communities (any mailing list NOT dedicated
> to personal relationships) these comments are decidedly inappropriate
> since there isn't the implied or explicit consent of ALL participants.

I disagree with your definition of most mailing lists as being something
really new (a "public community"?) and different to what we evolved
with. If somebody is having a conversation that you are able to read, if
you don't like it you ignore it, just like when you're in a pub and you
listen in to a conversation.

Is this the cause of the problem? That some people get offended just
because they are able to hear a conversation in a public place.

The ability to generate an uncountable number of private rooms for
complex sets of intersections of people is too new for most people to
make use of except for those comments that they think are just too much
for any chance of overhearing, the boundary being something they will
have learnt offline over the course of 20 years or so.


> > IMHO, the problem is only 
> in the ratio of men to women. The "women's
> > clubs" like ubuntu-women are therefore only slightly useful in changing
> > the proportion as they provide somewhere where women outnumber the men
> > rather than a balance (although due to the nature of the forum any men
> > there will be unlikely to receive much of the attention I mentioned
> > above).
> 
> The ratio isn't going to fix anything. Women can be part of a fully
> respectful majority (even overwhelming majority) community, or, they
> can even be a majority member of community which is male dominated
> (note the different usage of male majority and male dominated).

Not in a community... only in a group that know each other and their own
little rules that they have learnt from each other while conversing
together. In a community, there is nearly always a balance.


> A "bit of fun" works nicely when participants are on a (reasonably)
> equal footing. One where consent can be granted or taken away and
> there are consequences to actions. In a public forum like a mailing
> list such consent can neither be construed nor can there be
> non-trivial consequences (unless one oversteps the bounds of decency
> to such an extent that even the most ardant chauvinist might take
> heed).

Consent is rarely ever construed or granted, one tests the waters and
examine the response. Sometimes one does a bit more than test the
waters, then one apologises. A public house is a public forum and so is
the street, these same rules apply as in a friend's friend's living room
and I see no reason they shouldn't apply in an online forum. Most of the
problem comes from those few idiots who dive in with highly intimate
comments which becomes too much when there are so many making comments
to so few receiving them.


> > It would also help if the men would get away from their computers one
> > day in six and get laid so their capability for sexual thoughts is
> > diverted to other forums.
> 
> I understand the humour you're trying to employ but it doesn't work in
> the context of this forum or this thread.
> 
> Sexism isn't about the act of sex. It has nothing to do with sexual
> thoughts or the act of sex. It's about respect, power, insecurity,
> ignorance, stereotypes, and many other things I'm sure.

Part of this thread refers to plain unwanted sexual advances without any
kind of rapport. That's what this small paragraph (out of a rather large
email) was meant to refer to, and in the absence of population balance
in these forums, men should spend some time seeking relief from their
sexual tensions in other, more balanced forums where women are not so
under pressure and often welcome such attention (although it would be a
good idea to build a rapport there first, as well).

To pretend that sexism has nothing to do with the physical act of
lovemaking is foolish and will only hinder the discovery of a solution.
Sex and related talk is very important to those with higher testosterone
levels (such as men and many women after a few drinks, or when "on a
high") and factors heavily in many upsets as mentioned elsewhere in this
thread.

And the humour was to make the necessary reference to sexual intercourse
more palatable, which many people are uncomfortable with, friendly
rapport or not. 


In all, I think you personally are looking for a sexist and seeing them
behind even nonsexist comments or you may be equating sexism with
masculinity or confidence. Or did I miss understand and you didn't mean
to imply at the top of your email that my comment was sexist itself? I
think I see where this conversation is going and I'm dropping out - this
debate looks like a lost cause to me.

-- 
Tristan Wibberley

This is not derived from my any of my employers opinions.