mjg59: Today is Ada Lovelace day, a project to

Matthew Garrett (

mjg59) wrote,
@ 2009-03-24 23:04:00

Entry tags:

adalovelaceday09, advogato, fedora

Today is Ada Lovelace day, a project to celebrate the women involved in technology and make it easier to give examples of female role models in the industry. I've had the opportunity to meet many women working on Linux over the past few years, and if there's one thing that's tended to overshadow the achievements and dedication to their work it's the sheer amount of effort they've had to go to in order to gain equal recognition. And that made me realise that in many ways, the woman who's had the greatest impact on my career is Hanna Wallach[1]. About ten years ago she spent a ridiculous amount of effort teaching me that it didn't matter how much I professed to be entirely free of sexism if I then proceeded to do things that implicitly excluded women from being involved in computing communities. I've gone to some amount of effort to repay that (contains profanity and a man with a raccoon tail covering his crotch), but I'm very aware of how different my life might have been if Hanna hadn't gone to the trouble of ensuring that I knew not to be a dick.

I think the Linux community has become more welcoming since then, and Hanna and people like her have been instrumental in helping that happen. However, we still have people being driven away by the behaviour of others or arguments that technical contributions are more important than social behaviour, and while that's true we need role models for social change just as much as we need role models for technical achievement. Thanks, Hanna[2]. The Linux world's a better place because of you.

[1] And while she's a role model of mine for social reasons, she's also got a PhD in machine learning, was British computer science student of the year in 2001 and came top of her MSc class at Edinburgh. So there.

[2] "Thanna"

(35 comments) - (Post a new comment)

puzzlement
2009-03-25 12:42 am UTC (link)

This is more riffing off your post — which I enjoyed, thanks — than directly requiring comment, but over the last year, I, as a fairly determined non-educator of clueless men, have seen more than one example of successful social education (or at least the beginnings thereof, education about living in the world being continuous for everyone) of clueless men (trusting

mjg59's characterisation of himself here). Often I despair of people ever changing in any way and repeatedly I learn that I am wrong. It's great. I still don't want to do it though.

It is fairly important that people realise that it is not women's actual duty to socialise men either in the general case or even in the case of men who would appear to be desirable allies (or friends) post-education.

So share the load around, people, so that Hanna doesn't have to do it again. It doesn't hurt to start by keeping your eyes open and educating yourself about your own and other people's experiences of open harrassment and prejudice or subtle discrimination. (See also

firecat: a simile on community activism).

(Just to be clear, I do not think that

mjg59 specifically is writing about Hanna in such a way that he feels that he was entitled to her help or that it was her duty to give it, just that the general pattern of women as social educators of men is something worth ending.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

ivazquez
2009-03-25 01:46 am UTC (link)

... the general pattern of women as social educators of men is something worth ending.

This will be more difficult than expected, I think.

While adult women should not have to educate adult men, it is also true that a mother should educate a child. However, if a mother is of an older time where these practices were "acceptable", or even worse thinks that this practices are acceptable in this time, then it is much more difficult for her to impress upon her children that women and men should be treated equally and with respect.

Wherever there is a woman who is a doormat, there is potential for a little boy who thinks that wearing big boots is not a problem.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

puzzlement
2009-03-25 03:21 am UTC (link)

This will be more difficult than expected, I think.

I think of ending it as pretty spectacularly difficult already, although it might be harder than I expect, still.

If you would like to start though, perhaps explore your assumption that it will be a mother who is primarily responsible for the social education of children. It might be intended to be purely descriptive (as in, at the present time, it probably largely is mothers who do the social education of pre-pubescent children) but in a prescriptive sense it seems like having other adults (at least fathers and/or other partners of mothers) do large shares of this would be a very effective way of teaching children that it is not necessarily the case that adult women have been placed in the world to socialise everyone else.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	lnr 2009-03-25 09:07 am UTC (link)
	Ha, I should read all the comments before replying, you said it much better than me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	rmc28 2009-03-25 01:57 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you (and lnr) for saving me from my knee-jerk reaction and explaining it so well :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	puzzlement 2009-03-26 05:44 am UTC (link)
	... must... resist... urge... to... educate... further... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	lnr 2009-03-25 09:06 am UTC (link)
	Fathers should educate their children too. Although of course that doesn't help if you're a doormat married to a sexist man. (Reply to this) (Parent)

lionsphil
2009-03-25 12:53 am UTC (link)

"...arguments that technical contributions are more important than social behaviour..."

Don't those come right from the top, though?

As long as it's reasonably civil (I'm not personally a huge believer in being too polite or "politically correct", so I think the "reasonably" is more important than the "civil" part!), and as long as the end result is judged on TECHNICAL MERIT, it's all good.
—Linus

Crap like this is why LKML has become the local shorthand for "online hellhole of flaming social retards".

(In fact, one of the local peeps systematically disassembled that post as being indicative of all that's wrong with geeks that think that just because they can make the glowing boxes dance, they're gifted individuals who are above the need to be polite. And also think that primary school motivational phrases like "life is a game, and if you aren't in it to win, what the heck are you still doing here?" work, or that encouraging people to "out-do the out-doer" doesn't effectively mean "if you're not already the maintainer, don't waste your time, because they'll just reimplement whatever you submit so that they can win the dickwaving competition".)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	fooishbar 2009-03-25 01:33 am UTC (link)
	You're missing the distinction between what the technical end result is judged on (i.e. 'this patch is shit' vs. 'this patch is shit because foo is a moron'), rather than how an individual's participation in a particular community is judged. 'You're obnoxious and you're keeping people away' is nothing to do with their technical works. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

lionsphil
2009-03-25 01:54 am UTC (link)

Yes, but LKML permits people to be obnoxious and keep others away as long as they're producing something technically acceptable, which is pretty much exactly "technical contributions are more important than social behaviour". (Actually, I'm not so sure on the conditional, as there is a certain dogpiling effect in the Linux clique which seems to allow unrelated people to get their shots in too under the blanket of social inertia. And, as Matthew laments in his talk [somewhat], nobody calls them on it, so it then gives the impression that the whole community supports this asshattery.)

Linus may have meant only to say "it's OK to be a condescending prick if your criticisms of a patch are valid", but this is not what he wrote, nor is it how LKML behaves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

	lionsphil 2009-03-25 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	"Well, what if the opposite were the attitude?" Pff. Shall we just Godwin this strawman straight-off? "What if Jews had systematically executed millions of Nazis?" (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

lionsphil
2009-03-25 08:08 pm UTC (link)

You're the one who seems to have decided that the only alternative to an extreme imbalance is the exact negation of that imbalance, or possibly merely that the fact that such a inversion's undesirability justifies the status quo. I don't care if you think "straw man" is an Internet meme---it's a perfectly accurate term for the logical fallacy you are using as an argument. "Compromise is hard and never perfect" does not mean "fuck it, let's not even bother".

Now I've had to spell it out for you, can you either stick to arguments which stand up to more than a moment's scrutiny, or shall we dance round and round in the standard "nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!" pattern? Because if it's the latter, "Hitler".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

	lionsphil 2009-03-26 12:23 pm UTC (link)
	So, it's going to be the latter, complete with ad-hominem attacks. plonk (Reply to this) (Parent)

The Jim
(Anonymous)
2009-03-26 09:17 pm UTC (link)

This is because, rather obviously, if you choose to rate people on two completely unrelated criteria, you then have to reconcile the scores.

It's not obvious at all, because the two criteria we're talking about are demonstrably related. If you don't accept that dogmatism arises from lazy thinking and/or ignorance, or you choose to ignore the truism that people who can't help inserting their own egos into a discussion and/or staking their self-worth on its outcome are, by definition, unable to think objectively, I'm not sure what else to say. It seems pretty damned obvious to me.

Godwin's Law, which you've tried to invoke twice to shut down a discussion which you apparently dislike.

I'm pretty sure this was meant in jest - you're just hurting your own credibility by responding seriously.

Oh, and such an inversion's undesirability justifies the status quo is pretty much how Kantian ethics works... it's certainly got its flaws, but it's well-enough founded to use here.

Well founded by whom and in what arena? I don't know what Kantian ethics is, but it sounds like a cop-out. Attaching Kant's name to this line of speculation does nothing to distract from its essential unsoundness, and it's not an acceptable way to argue against change. This is exactly the kind of wastebasket logic used by lobby groups and other professional ideologues to shout down legal reform on "controversial" issues like drugs, gay rights, and abortion, and history shows such arguments to be utter nonsense in the cold light of evidence. Remember 24-hour alcohol licensing? That's right: nothing happened. Some statistics changed a bit. Life went on.

If you want to defend the status quo, show convincing evidence of harm, not some vague fear that all the nice people are incapable of writing, or unwilling to write, quality code simply because they give a damn about each other's feelings, and that it's therefore okay to be a cock. That's the worst kind of cynicism, and actually assumes the very superiority the retards claim of themselves and their work in order to justify letting them bully anyone who enters their sandpit.

Take away the assumption that objectivity requires social retardation, and all you're left with is a bunch of antisocial people with a well-rehearsed ego-defence mechanism that allows them to feel okay about being nasty.

Personally, I'd have thought that, before asking for large-scale demographic changes, it'd be sensible to consider the consequences of such changes... at least for anyone older than 4.

Why, don't children under 5 warrant consideration? That seems a bit racist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

	Re: The Jim pjc50 2009-03-27 12:16 pm UTC (link)
	I don't give a toss about the status quo because the F/LOSS movement has managed to plumb depths even lower than academic politics in terms of bitterness over trivialities. I've no interest in ever being a part of it. Then why are you posting here? (Reply to this) (Parent)

pjc50
2009-03-27 12:38 pm UTC (link)

if you choose to rate people on two completely unrelated criteria, you then have to reconcile the scores

Not necessarily, because the goal is not to rate the person, but the act. Granted, criticism of an act reflects on the actor, but there are ways of increasing or decreasing that effect.

Clearly the unacknowledged status quo is that some level of contribution is required to even be on the mailing list at all - gratuitous spam is not allowed. Someone with no technical contributions who leapt in flame-first would quickly be banned, or the whole thing would have long degenerated into unreadability.

It's not clear whether the status quo is really "asshattery is allowed in proportion to usefulness" or "a minimum of usefulness allows as much asshattery as you want", or something else, but I don't think you can claim that the only legitimate negation of the status quo is "social > technical". Not everything in this universe can be made subject to a total ordering.

I think what is being asked for is more along the lines of "a minimum level of social eptness is required for each message". Moreover, everybody who reads lkml already performs some level of "evaluation and grading" of the technical and social aspects of every message they read, simply by virtue of being a human reader. A little "you have a point, but there's no need to be rude" would go a long way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

The Jim
(Anonymous)
2009-03-27 02:30 pm UTC (link)

Thanks for this - good post.

I don't think you can claim that the only legitimate negation of the status quo is "social > technical". Not everything in this universe can be made subject to a total ordering.

Absolutely. Excluding the middle in this manner is pretty much the definition of a straw man.

everybody who reads lkml already performs some level of "evaluation and grading" of the technical and social aspects of every message they read, simply by virtue of being a human reader. A little "you have a point, but there's no need to be rude" would go a long way.

Right. The problem right now is that, no matter what their personal opinions while reading a post, the powers that be on LKML (for example) don't seem to want to take responsibility for the image of their community by either publicly calling asshat posters on their attitude, or privately censuring/censoring them. This is what needs to change if outsiders are to get a positive impression of such communities, and that in turn will encourage socially functional people (male and female) to join in.

Whatever we think of social retards personally, they do measurable damage in the same way any excessively vocal minority does - by working against the common good. The common good here is inclusiveness: functional people outnumber retards by quite a way, so the need for more manpower demands a reining in of some people's egos if FOSS is to thrive. This is quite apart from the quality problems that can arise from ego-driven reasoning, and the impact of negative PR on funding.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	pjc50 2009-03-25 01:17 pm UTC (link)
	What of the patches never submitted by the people who are put off by the social retards? It sounds like a bit of a wash. There is something here though in that being in the F/L/OSS field at all requires ignoring a couple of social norms, but it's much worse than it needs to be. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

	The Jim (Anonymous) 2009-03-26 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	I think I hear some statisticians muttering in shocked tones about drawing conclusions from samples known to be biased. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	pjc50 2009-03-27 10:56 am UTC (link)
	This is too good an opportunity to pass up, as you were asking for evidence elsewhere in the thread: example of a patch by a social retard, please? (Reply to this) (Parent)

The Jim
(Anonymous)
2009-03-25 06:42 pm UTC (link)

I don't see a problem with this. People who can't be bothered with basic manners are demonstrably lazy and/or arrogant in the first place. Why would I trust such a person to make good engineering decisions?

Engineering is the art of judging acceptable compromises between conflicting requirements; only an unbiased, curious person can make such compromises in an objectively sound way.

While their unwarranted self-assurance gives some social retards the impetus and concentration to *complete* software projects in the first place (undoubtedly a good thing in itself), the actual work is likely to suffer from bad choices traceable to said retard's absolutist dogmas, poor attention span, and bad breath.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The Jim (Anonymous) 2009-03-25 06:55 pm UTC (link)
	"People who can't be bothered with basic manners are demonstrably lazy and/or arrogant in the first place." You make it sound like "basic manners" is a globally recognized norm for social interaction. Guess what? It isn't. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The Jim (Anonymous) 2009-03-26 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	Oh please - this objection is so feeble it's not even a straw-man. "Nothing is universally certain or agreed upon, therefore your assertions aren't 100% correct AND ARE THEREFORE 9000% WRONG!!!1". I think I hear Han Solo calling you back to the Millennium Falcon! (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: The Jim
(Anonymous)
2009-03-26 08:05 pm UTC (link)

On a less trollish note: if it helps you understand my point, substitute "to find out, and practice, what the majority of humanity and/or the specific people they're dealing with *consider* to be good manners, out of respect for those people" for "with good manners". I prefer the first one because it's more concise.

I like the irony of defending dogmatism with a relativist argument, though - kudos ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: The Jim (Anonymous) 2009-03-26 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry for the triple post, but I just had to mention the delicious irony of replying to my post in a sufficiently trollish manner as to succeed in starting an argument on the Internet about... arguing on the Internet. Thanks, you made my day! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	pjc50 2009-03-25 01:12 pm UTC (link)
	primary school motivational phrases like "life is a game, and if you aren't in it to win, what the heck are you still doing here?" That's one hell of a brutal primary school. What happened to "play fair or get out of the sandpit"? (Reply to this) (Parent)

The Jim
(Anonymous)
2009-03-25 07:45 pm UTC (link)

That Linus quote gets my goat for a specific reason: it seems now that every apologist for some kind of antisocial behaviour regularly spouts the phrase "politically correct" as a way of implicitly demonising everyone that finds their behaviour unacceptable. Moreover, they seem to think that using quote marks automatically forgives their abuse of this phrase out of its correct context.

The phrase "politically correct" originated as a pejorative way of describing excessive diplomacy, unwarranted neutrality, and a refusal to recognise inconvenient established facts; above all, it implies a form of ideological cowardice. It is not intended as a one-size-fits-all justification for verbalising, unedited, every thought that comes to mind like some kind of latter-day Alf Garnett.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

printf.net
2009-03-25 12:55 am UTC (link)

About ten years ago she spent a ridiculous amount of effort teaching me that it didn't matter how much I professed to be entirely free of sexism if I then proceeded to do things that implicitly excluded women from being involved in computing communities. I've gone to some amount of effort to repay that

I can't help thinking that we might even, one day, go so far as to conclude that having our conference talks next to a man who is naked except for what looks like some kind of giant penis device might be a bad way to include women in our computing communities too. Maybe it's just me, though.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	mjg59 2009-03-25 01:05 am UTC (link)
	There's a long story associated with that, which makes it significantly less concerning in context. But, uh, yes. (Reply to this) (Parent)

lionsphil
2009-03-25 01:11 am UTC (link)

I hope that one day what you have between your legs, be it covered in racoon fur or not, won't actually even enter consideration for "inclusion in computing communities". Perhaps, in this hypothetical future time, socially malajusted geeks will stop saying "we need to stop acting like dicks because we're scaring away the womenfolk, timid and unable to defend themselves in a flamewar as they are", and start instead with "we need to stop acting like dicks because we're convincing people who might otherwise be contributing that getting involved would be a massive waste of their time spent primarily arguing on the Internet".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jimbojones
2009-04-02 07:02 pm UTC (link)

stop saying "we need to stop acting like dicks because we're scaring away the womenfolk, timid and unable to defend themselves in a flamewar as they are", and start instead with "we need to stop acting like dicks because we're convincing people who might otherwise be contributing that getting involved would be a massive waste of their time spent primarily arguing on the Internet".

THAT, for christ's sake... THAT.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	... (Anonymous) 2009-03-25 12:58 am UTC (link)
	Why is there a naked man with a raccoon tail for a penis on stage? I don't get it. Poor Hanna. Future employers googling for her name will probably end up on this page, wondering why she associates with people who hang out on stage with freaky naked raccoon-men.. - dilinger (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: ... lionsphil 2009-03-25 01:17 am UTC (link)
	One could also wonder why the camera feels the need to pan to the left to keep him in shot once Matthew starts talking. Or why he's wearing matching furry gloves. Perhaps he's buying the suit piecewise, as he can afford it? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Hurrah valhenson 2009-03-25 06:42 am UTC (link)
	I am loving all of the Ada Lovelace Day posts. I'm glad you're playing too! (Reply to this)

	reddragdiva 2009-04-05 11:18 am UTC (link)
	I carefully crafted this over several weeks and it sunk without trace. Bah. (Reply to this)

(35 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store