by Willy Tarreau

[permalink] [raw]

On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 11:51 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> No, it's actually some of the comments I've received that bother me.
> For example, I would never want to deal with the misogynist troll,
> Lubin, EVER again.

It surprises me to see you calling someone names like that, Sarah. It
seems to be contrary to the request that you are making of others.

> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.general/42482

Perhaps I'm missing some context, but I'm a little confused. Did you
really complain at him *merely* because he used the phrase 'old boys
club'?

That phrase is *not* about the gender of the participants, it's about
nepotism and exclusion of non-members. Men are just as excluded by the
"old boys network" of that phrase, as women are. He's talking about
*himself* being excluded, as far as I can tell. At least in places.

To complain that he was being sexist, just because he used that phrase,
was just *WRONG*.

That was *absolutely* not what he was talking about. You appeared to
bring gender (and gender discrimination) into a conversation where it
was completely out of place and inappropriate to do so.

Sarah, it may have escaped your attention that some words and phrases
which are common in the English language contain words which appear to
be gender-specific. But that *doesn't* make them sexist. It makes no
more sense to harangue this person for his use of the phrase 'old boys
club', than it would to harangue someone for saying 'mankind' instead of
'peoplekind'.

> "You may be seen as a liability by Intel preaching "feminism" on a
> public forum. From their point of view: will you play the gender card
> on them. Here is what you did: Instead of realizing that I was being
> _very_ sympathetic to a more diverse Linux development environment by
> using the phrase "the old boys club", you pretended to take offense, not
> realizing you're in fact becoming a liability. That's okay. Honest
> mistake."
>
> Telling me my job at Intel is in jeopardy because I'm complaining about
> sexist statements is a threat. It's verbal abuse, and I won't take it.
> I shouldn't have to put up with these kinds of statements and personal
> attacks.

It's not verbal abuse, and it's not an attack. He's suggesting that if
you jump at shadows and make inappropriate complaints, you may make your
employer wary because they might be concerned that you may do the same
thing to *their* detriment. Knowing your employer as I do, I think he's
probably wrong — but I certainly don't think it was a personal attack.

Unless that message came from someone inside your employer (and probably
in your management chain), it's hard to interpret it as a 'threat'. It's
just misplaced, misguided, "personal advice" being offered to make a
point.

You gave plenty of examples earlier of stuff which *was* completely
inappropriate and personal abuse. This isn't one of them, and it
detracts from your position.

Sarah, if you're going to ask us to change our behaviour to accommodate
those who are unable to cope with our normal day-to-day communication,
then I think you need to be careful to retain your credibility by
practising what you preach, and by making sure that there *is* merit in
anything you do complain about.

There *is* plenty to complain about, certainly, without also jumping at
shadows and effectively performing an ad hominem on yourself by doing
so.

When you say that you want us to avoid personal abuse and attacks,
that's fine and I think everyone can fairly much agree. But it looks
like you have a very different definition of what 'abuse' and 'attacks'
actually are, too.

I think that's largely where the understanding breaks down in this
discussion.

I support efforts to ensure civility and encourage a more diverse
participation in our community. But when I see examples like this one, I
worry about what it might lead to. I fear that it might end up being
taken *too* far, and that makes me reluctant to support it — I fear that
we'll end up on a slippery slope to a world where I'll end up being
excluded because someone will take offence at me simply using the common
phrases and idioms of the language I grew up with. And the offence which
is drawn will be *so* random and arbitrary and unpredictable, like the
alleged 'sexism' in 'old boys club' above, that I'll be fearful of
saying *anything*, ever.

I don't think I'm the only one who has that reaction.

--
dwmw2

Attachments:

smime.p7s (5.61 kB)

2013-07-17 22:43:24

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:43:53 -0400 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 13:33 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > If you're basing your entire theory on male/female interaction on
> > teenagers, then I'm afraid your wife might be on to something ...
>
> No, it's also based on interaction with my Wife and her sister too ;-)
>

I genuinely think the gender difference is a distraction. The simple fact is
that people are different. Wildly amazingly beautifully different.

Certainly some metrics have starkly different averages for men than women,
and there can be biological and social drivers of that. But those metrics
very often vary greatly among men and among women.

But it's really people that are different.

Some people are very perceptive of, and responsive to, those differences.
They are able and willing to listen and understand and adjust. They try to
fit in with others. I know a few people like that and I am staggered by how
effectively they bond with other people.

Other people are blind to the differences. They expect everyone to be just
like themselves. When the reality shows that isn't true they create coarse
stereotypes to allow them to pigeon hole others. This naturally leads to
prejudice and sometimes to hate. And I know a few people like that too -
maybe not quite the extreme, but certainly closer to that extreme than me.

I believe that the abstract/mathematical/literal abilities that allow someone
to be good at software development is inversely correlated with the
holistic/forgiving/flexible abilities that allow someone to be good at
understanding others.

One needs to care deeply about small details. The other needs to work with
hints and suggestions and accept that precision is simply not available.

I know for myself that such understanding of people as I have has developed
slowly due to hard work, patience from a loving wife and others, and from me
stepping well outside my comfort zone - where as the mathematical ability
was obvious in kindergarten and never needed any encouragement.

And the people I know who are very good with other people are about as
comfortable with technology as I am with strangers (i.e. not very).

If this negative correlation is true, then it says something very important
about our community. I don't think there is any need for me to spell it out.

I think the recent discussion demonstrates this quite clearly. Lots of
beating on chests, very little meeting of minds. Lots of talk about
technical solutions (or non-solutions), very little suggestion of
acknowledgement, accommodation or compromise.
[some - yes. But not much]

Maybe that is just who we are. Yes, we are sometimes blind to differences in
others and can lead us to hurt and repel them. But that blindness allows us
to focus on excellence in technology and so it is worth it.
Or maybe that is only who were were. Maybe we've got the technology pretty
much under control and we (individuals) can choose to put more effort into
listening to people who are very different to us. Stop accepting the fact
that we "just don't understand some people" and use our not inconsiderable
intellect find some understanding.

(and no, I don't completely understand my wife either, but I'm sure I
understand her better now than I once did).

NeilBrown

Attachments:

signature.asc (828.00 B)

2013-07-20 12:35:55

by Felipe Contreras

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [ATTEND] How to act on LKML

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> * Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> As Linus already pointed out, not everybody has to work with everybody.
>>>
>>> That's not the point though, the point is to potentially roughly double
>>> the creative brain capacity of the Linux kernel project.
>>
>> Unfortunately that's impossible; we all know there aren't as many
>> women programmers as there are men. So there's absolutely *nothing*
>> the Linux kernel can do to double the creative brain capacity of the
>> Linux kernel project (at least with respect to women).
>
> There may be less women programmers than men programmers, but that
> doesn't say anything about the ratio of female Linux kernel hackers vs.
> female programmers.

I think it does, because Linux kernel programmers is a subset of
programmers; the very best and very low-level. Unless women
programmers are disproportionately biased towards low-level, and they
are significantly better than their male counterparts, I wouldn't be
holding my breath.

The best case scenario is that we are equal in that regard, in which
case you probably would expect to double or triple the number of
female programmers in Linux thanks to outreach programs, but certainly
not match the amount of male ones.

> So let's hope we can prove you wrong soon ;-)

I think you need more than "hope" to change one of the fundamental
rules of LKML; be open and honest, even if that means expressing your
opinion in a way that others might consider offensive and colorful.

--
Felipe Contreras

2013-07-20 17:04:39

Hi,

just a short comment.

I think, this snippet shows the key point in this argument:

At 15.07.2013 21:53 CEST +02:00 Sarah Sharp wrote:
> Good lord. So anyone that is one of your "top maintainers" could be
> exposed to your verbal abuse just because they "should have known
> better"?
>
> You know what the definition of an abuser is? Someone that seeks out
> victims that they know will "just take it" and keep the abuse "between
> the two of them". They pick victims that won't fight back or report the
> abuse.
>
Sarah introduced the term "abuse" like in the first paragraph into the
discussion while complaining about the tone in some statements. It's her
claim, that all non-"polite" statements are an "abuse".

In the second paragraph, then she argues that "abuse" should be
prevented, using some definition of "abuse".

The claim that the unwanted kind of statements are really a kind of
abuse is still unfounded. She could have proven it -- eg by using
its/her/a definition -- but she only used this definition as foundation
to dislike the non-"polite" statements.

Imho this is just circular reasoning [1]
> (I) dislike -> (I regard as) impolite -> kind of abuse -> to be disliked (by all)
and so has no substance up to now. Maybe, logical package management
would have recognized this unmet dependency ;)

Disclaimer:
I dont' question the implication "abuse -> to be disliked".

Flo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning