An Open Letter to the Open Source Community

[Eric Dunbar]

On 22/05/07, Tristan Wibberley <maihem at maihem.org> wrote:
> 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 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.

It's late so I'm going to restrict my comments.

Take a look at:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:sexism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The search asks Google for a definition of sexism. NOWHERE in any of
the definitions offered up is sex (as in the verb) mentioned
(obviously this is proving a negative but... for the sake of argument
it works reasonably well). "Sexual banter" is that -- it can be
abusive and certainly tread into the realm of harassment, but that is
not what is sexism. Sexism is the same sort of discrimination as
racism or any other bigotry. It is acting on an unjustified belief
about another person because of their membership (usually beyond their
reasonably control... it's pretty hard not to change the fact that
you're a woman, for e.g. ;-) in a particular group. This can include
making light of someone because of their x, y, z.

Although this is bordering on a pretty severe tangent, it does
illustrate the problem with the flippant use of language and its
acceptance. Amongst teens it's fashionable to say "that's so gay" or
"it's so gay". When first confronted with the phrase I was of the
mind, it's harmless. The word no longer refers to homosexuals, but
I've come to see the flip side. It still DOES refer to homosexuals and
it is used in a decidedly negative light. The best approach I've seen
is to challenge its use as follows. Replace "gay" with another
identifiable group. When you think something is worthless, say "That's
so black" (which really gets them because it's not acceptable to use
"black" in such a context (even if skin colour-oriented racism is
alive and thriving) or "That's so Christian" or...

Anyway, what's the point of my tangent. Half the problem is merely
RECOGNISING that discrimination exists, even in subtle uses of
language. Explanation and rationalization may assuage a guilty
conscience (no such aspersions being made!) or may seems like a
reasonable path to follow (I'm guilty of it -- I find much of the
politically language quite offensive and "over the top" -- usually ill
conceived), however, there is also a need to recognise the power of
language and denial doesn't help it.

PS It strikes me as rather telling that the bulk of this thread has
come from males.

PS 2 I'd like to respond to other parts of your e-mail but I'm damned
busy and shouldn't be on here anyway so I'm leaving it be for tonight.

> > 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.

A pub is a place where anything goes provided it's legal (which varies
by jurisdiction). Mailing lists and development lists are by-and-large
places devoted to particular and restricted topics. OSS development
lists don't exist for people to "let off steam" or "chum around".
That's what other channels are for. Even sounder doesn't exist for
people to let off too much steam (limited to what is Ubuntu and OSS).

> > 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.

That is implied consent and there are REAL consequences -- you can
alienate a person and their friends. You can lose privileges, etc. The
consequences are real and meaningful. On a mailing list, the
consequences are trivial (you can jump to a different list, sign up
under another pseudonym, etc.)

Anyway, I should've stuck to my "I'm done now".