--0-645424351-1131318803=:21212
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

In response to Lisa about her CS chat room response:
 
Did you try to write that guy back, saying maybe, "duh, I acknowledged the two
modules, now do you have a solution?"  or something like that.	To assume that
the response was because you're a woman may be a stretch, or it may not, but
you don't know for sure.  Maybe he responded before seeing your 2nd post.  To
assume that anyone with a smart comment like that is a sexist is just as
sexist.  Plus, if he is sexist, wouldn't it behoove the world to attempt to
show him that you're a female who does know what she's talking about and
possibly change his view?  I can see that his reponse was maddening.  Sometimes
people are just plain distracted or not thinking when they respond to email and
totally miss points in what they're responding to.  There are just so many
reasons why he could have responded like that, so you shouldn't assume it's
sexist.  If you write back, he might apologize for being so obvious and give a
decent response.  
 
Anything you're looking for, you'll find.  It's how psychics stay in business. 
They tell people something that will happen to them and when it's on your mind,
you'll look for it, maybe subconsciously, but you'll look for it.  "my psychic
said I was going to have something wonderful happen to me, this must be it." -
and their belief in psycics is confirmed.  "I think there must be sexism in the
CS community and this guy must have been exuding it." - and your belief that it
exists is confirmed.  If you didn't think sexism existed, you would have just
wondered why this guy was such an idiot to respond like that, would have
assumed he was either distracted, not thinking, or didn't see your 2nd
response, and would have responded to him to get a better answer.  If you
didn't get a better answer, you'd either think he's an idiot and forget about
it, or possibly, depending on how he responded, have the thought that maybe he
was sexist.

Melanie

Lisa Hsu   wrote:
i would say that i'm a regular old liberal feminist.  i've never been one to be
extreme about anything, i'm sort of of the "can't we all just get along"
school, and i really do just hope for a society one day where everyone can just
BE who they want to be without social pressures to be something else.  however,
on some level i do understand that for this to happen there has to be some
radical action, but i'm somehwat inherently an unradically minded person so i
can't imagine being a radical feminist because it seems so....dramatic and
extreme and...well, radical.

however, i will agree with victoria and say that being "not a feminist but not
*not* a feminist" is somewhat of a copout answer.  you either think women are
full human beings with rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,
whatever form that may take, or you don't.  if someone were to ask you, "do you
think it's acceptable that your daughter/mother/sister is unfairly treated in
way X because she's a woman?"  you can't possibly have a neutral reaction.  you
either think it sucks and shouldn't be that way or you think it's just the way
it is and it's fine. in this sense, i think everyone is at heart a feminist
except for misogynists.  but i suppose i am an optimist as well as a feminist.

tangentially related...the other day i faced what i imagine to be my very first
explicitly and maddeningly negative experience as a woman in CS.  i was having
problems getting some open-source code to work in a certain environment, so i
posted to a mailing list devoted to that code with my situation and questions. 
i did mess up and have to send two emails, one that said, "hi, i'm trying to X
in environment Y, but i'm having problem Z", and another that said, "oops, i
meant problem Z*, where module A and module B are failing to load".  

now, i'd perused that mailing list for a while before posting, i had done all
my homework, it wasn't a dumb question, and the group seemed like a helpful
group, so i was sure i'd get a good response. instead, i got "well, you see,
there are two modules, module A and module B."

which i thought was pretty obvious since my error acknowledged both of them. 
that is all  i ever got out of the list.  that guy's response was essentially
like, "well see, this is a COMPUTER."  well, maybe not that bad, but i was so
filled with indignation and rage at this response, because it essentially
assumed i was an IDIOT and i'm NOT.  i'm getting upset now just thinking about
it.  i even had a friend acknowledge it probably would have been better if i'd
signed my name L. Hsu or Larry Hsu or something.

I'd never faced anything like this before because most people i interact with i
have MET, or something about my qualifications precedes our interaction.  but
here on the anonymous net, they have no idea that my question is worth thinking
about and considering, and it was totally blown off.  which means we really
haven't made any progress, in a vacuum, a girl posting to a geek mailing list
probably doesn't know shit. 

it's all the worse because later, some guy posted something like, "hi i'm
totally new to this, can someone help me figure out this problem?"  and another
guy wrote, "it's ok!  we all start somewhere, try this!"  what a nice friendly
response to what i thought was a much dumber question than mine because i had
run into the same thing and figured out how to solve it myself in about 20
minutes. yet he got such a friendly reception.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

this has now degenerated into an online rant, and i will cease to do so now.

lisa

On 11/5/05, Michelle Sternthal	 wrote:I am a feminist, proud to call myself
that.  I would even identify myself as a
radical feminist.  Not to the extent that I attribute all blame to men
or argue
for a matriarchy, but to the extent that I think merely equalizing pay or 
assuring equal representation in our political and judicial spheres will NOT
solve the problem of mysogyny.	I think that the very institutions in which we
live currently foster discriminiation/oppression; a fundamental reexamination 
of hidden assumptions and social norms emerging from these institutions is
neccessary to get to a new place.  What does that mean in reality?  Well, for
example, the concept of professionalism in society and the values it fosters-- 
individualism, excessive consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1
form of intelligence is prioritized-- creates a system in which women must fit
into traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize.  The notion of 
work/family strain, or the very nuclear family, reflects the remnants of
traditional patriarchy.  one can think of alternative models of work or
kinship
((extended family, think of the kibbutz) in which women would not have to face 
this struggle or where other skills would be valued.

Let's think of gender conceptions, and which institutions encourage
these roles.
>From pre-birth, our children are given a gender.  Religion, schools,
everywhere
with a public bathroom, highlight this distinction as one of the most
important
in society.  To equalize the playing field, we must address these institutions
as well and the messages they send....

In order to "subvert the dominant gender paradigm" (that's for you,
Bethany and
Danny) simply demanding laws to equalize pay will not be enough.  The ideology
behind this inequity must also be addressed.  this is a war not of the law but 
of the mind....

michelle


Quoting Daniel Reeves  :

> Quick show of hands for your basic attitude towards feminism (and
> also I'm curious who all is reading along)? 
>
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>
> Don't forget to hit submit on the whiteboard.  If you don't know what 
> that means, just read the poll at the link above and email me your
> (ideally one-word) response.
>
> Thanks y'all!
> Danny
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -	google://"Daniel Reeves"
>
>
>



--
Michelle Sternthal
Joint Doctoral Program in Sociology & Public Policy
University of Michigan 
734-709-6650 (cell)
mjste Æ umich.edu

"We, unaccustomed to courage/ exiles from delight/ live coiled in shells of
loneliness/ until love leaves its high holy temple/ and comes into our sight/ 
to liberate us into life."
--Maya Angelou





--0-645424351-1131318803=:21212
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

 In response to Lisa about her CS chat room response: 
   
 Did you try to write that guy back, saying maybe, "duh, I acknowledged the two
modules, now do you have a solution?"  or something like that.	To assume that
the response was because you're a woman may be a stretch, or it may not, but
you don't know for sure.  Maybe he responded before seeing your 2nd post.  To
assume that anyone with a smart comment like that is a sexist is just as
sexist.  Plus, if he is sexist, wouldn't it behoove the world to attempt to
show him that you're a female who does know what she's talking about and
possibly change his view?  I can see that his reponse was maddening.  Sometimes
people are just plain distracted or not thinking when they respond to email and
totally miss points in what they're responding to.  There are just so many
reasons why he could have responded like that, so you shouldn't assume it's
sexist.  If you write back, he might apologize for being so obvious and give a!
  decent
 response.   
   
 Anything you're looking for, you'll find.  It's how psychics stay in business.
 They tell people something that will happen to them and when it's on your
mind, you'll look for it, maybe subconsciously, but you'll look for it.  "my
psychic said I was going to have something wonderful happen to me, this must be
it." - and their belief in psycics is confirmed.  "I think there must be sexism
in the CS community and this guy must have been exuding it." - and your belief
that it exists is confirmed.  If you didn't think sexism existed, you would
have just wondered why this guy was such an idiot to respond like that, would
have assumed he was either distracted, not thinking, or didn't see your 2nd
response, and would have responded to him to get a better answer.  If you
didn't get a better answer, you'd either think he's an idiot and forget about
it, or possibly, depending on how he responded, have the thought that maybe he
was sexist.  
 Melanie 
    Lisa Hsu <lisashoe Æ gmail.com>	 wrote: 
 i would say that i'm a regular old liberal feminist.  i've never been one to
be extreme about anything, i'm sort of of the "can't we all just get along"
school, and i really do just hope for a society one day where everyone can just
BE who they want to be without social pressures to be something else.  however,
on some level i do understand that for this to happen there has to be some
radical action, but i'm somehwat inherently an unradically minded person so i
can't imagine being a radical feminist because it seems so....dramatic and
extreme and...well, radical.  however, i will agree with victoria and say that
being "not a feminist but not *not* a feminist" is somewhat of a copout answer.
 you either think women are full human beings with rights to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness, whatever form that may take, or you don't.  if someone
were !
 to ask
 you, "do you think it's acceptable that your daughter/mother/sister is
unfairly treated in way X because she's a woman?"  you can't possibly have a
neutral reaction.  you either think it sucks and shouldn't be that way or you
think it's just the way it is and it's fine. in this sense, i think everyone is
at heart a feminist except for misogynists.  but i suppose i am an optimist as
well as a feminist.  tangentially related...the other day i faced what i
imagine to be my very first explicitly and maddeningly negative experience as a
woman in CS.  i was having problems getting some open-source code to work in a
certain environment, so i posted to a mailing list devoted to that code with my
situation and questions.  i did mess up and have to send two emails, one that
said, "hi, i'm trying to X in environment Y, but i'm having problem Z", and
another that said, "oops, i meant problem Z*, where module A and module B are
failing to load".   !
  now,
 i'd perused that mailing list for a while before posting, i had done all my
homework, it wasn't a dumb question, and the group seemed like a helpful group,
so i was sure i'd get a good response. instead, i got "well, you see, there are
two modules, module A and module B."  which i thought was pretty obvious since
my error acknowledged both of them.  that is all  i ever got out of the list. 
that guy's response was essentially like, "well see, this is a COMPUTER." 
well, maybe not that bad, but i was so filled with indignation and rage at this
response, because it essentially assumed i was an IDIOT and i'm NOT.  i'm
getting upset now just thinking about it.  i even had a friend acknowledge it
probably would have been better if i'd signed my name L. Hsu or Larry Hsu or
something.  I'd never faced anything like this before because most people i
interact with i have MET, or something about my qualifications precedes our
interaction.&nbs!
 p; but
 here on the anonymous net, they have no idea that my question is worth
thinking about and considering, and it was totally blown off.  which means we
really haven't made any progress, in a vacuum, a girl posting to a geek mailing
list probably doesn't know shit.   it's all the worse because later, some guy
posted something like, "hi i'm totally new to this, can someone help me figure
out this problem?"  and another guy wrote, "it's ok!  we all start somewhere,
try this!"  what a nice friendly response to what i thought was a much dumber
question than mine because i had run into the same thing and figured out how to
solve it myself in about 20 minutes. yet he got such a friendly reception. 
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.  this has now degenerated into an online rant,
and i will cease to do so now.	lisa  
  On 11/5/05,  Michelle Sternthal  < mjste Æ umich.edu > wrote: 
 I am a feminist, proud to call myself that.  I would even identify myself as a
radical feminist.  Not to the extent that I attribute all blame to men or argue
for a matriarchy, but to the extent that I think merely equalizing pay or 
assuring equal representation in our political and judicial spheres will NOT
solve the problem of mysogyny.	I think that the very institutions in which we
live currently foster discriminiation/oppression; a fundamental reexamination 
of hidden assumptions and social norms emerging from these institutions is
neccessary to get to a new place.  What does that mean in reality?  Well, for
example, the concept of professionalism in society and the values it fosters-- 
individualism, excessive consumption, a hierarchical system of work in which 1
f!
 orm of
 intelligence is prioritized-- creates a system in which women must fit into
traditional patriarchical roles in order to equalize.  The notion of 
work/family strain, or the very nuclear family, reflects the remnants of
traditional patriarchy.  one can think of alternative models of work or kinship
((extended family, think of the kibbutz) in which women would not have to face 
this struggle or where other skills would be valued.  Let's think of gender
conceptions, and which institutions encourage these roles. From pre-birth, our
children are given a gender.  Religion, schools, everywhere with a public
bathroom, highlight this distinction as one of the most important in society. 
To equalize the playing field, we must address these institutions as well and
the messages they send....  In order to "subvert the dominant gender paradigm"
(that's for you, Bethany and Danny) simply dema!
 nding
 laws to equalize pay will not be enough.  The ideology behind this inequity
must also be addressed.  this is a war not of the law but  of the mind.... 
michelle   Quoting Daniel Reeves < dreeves Æ umich.edu >:  >
Quick show of hands for your basic attitude towards feminism (and > also I'm
curious who all is reading along)?  > > 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld  > > Don't forget
to hit submit on the whiteboard.  If you don't know what  > that means, just
read the poll at the link above and email me your > (ideally one-word)
response. > > Thanks y'all! > Danny > > -- > 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves   - -  google://"Daniel
 Reeves" > > >    -- Michelle Sternthal Joint Doctoral Program in
Sociology & Public Policy University of Michigan  734-709-6650 (cell) 
mjste Æ umich.edu	 "We, unaccustomed to courage/ exiles from delight/
live coiled in shells of loneliness/ until love leaves its high holy temple/
and comes into our sight/  to liberate us into life." --Maya Angelou	   
--0-645424351-1131318803=:21212--