On 11/6/05, Melanie Reeves <m= elzafish Æ sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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." - an= d 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 al= l just get along" school, and i really do just hope for a society one da= y 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 thin= k 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 prob= lem Z*, where module A and module B are failing to load".

no= w, 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 sta= rt 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.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR= R.

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.e= du > 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 t= o men
or argue
for a matriarchy, but to the extent that I think merely equ= alizing pay or
assuring equal representation in our political and judic= ial spheres will NOT
solve the problem of mysogyny.  I think t= hat the very institutions in which we
live currently foster discriminiation/oppression; a fundamental reexami= nation
of hidden assumptions and social norms emerging from these insti= tutions is
neccessary to get to a new place.  What does that m= ean in reality?  Well, for
example, the concept of professionalism in society and the values it fo= sters--
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 n= otion of
work/family strain, or the very nuclear family, reflects the r= emnants 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. &= nbsp;Religion, schools,
everywhere
with a public bathroom, highlight = this distinction as one of the most
important
in society.  To equalize the playing field, we m= ust address these institutions
as well and the messages they send....
In order to "subvert the dominant gender paradigm" (that's f= or 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 Reeve= s < dreeves Æ umich.edu>:

> Quick show of hands for your basic a= ttitude towards feminism (and
> also I'm curious who all is reading a= long)?
>
> 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 m= e your
> (ideally one-word) response.
>
> Thanks y'all!
>= Danny
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  googl= e://"Daniel Reeves"
>
>
>

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

"We, unaccustomed to courage/ exiles from d= elight/ 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