But I also think, that the words are less important, than the real intentions of a person.

Judgement of a person based only on a few words is very superficial (and tabloid-like).
“”"

Pray how is one to define a person’s “real intentions” from a written report? And why do you assume, despite all the statements to the contrary in the comments preceding yours, that people are judging Mark Shuttleworth?

One must conclude that you wanted to post these remarks without reading the discussions surrounding them, but (for the record, since I *know* women get tired of having to explain this three hundred times every time something like this comes up) the criticism is of the words not of the person. All that was required to put this whole thing straight is an acknowledgement that this was an inappropriate choice of words.

Allison Randall was present at the talk, and I believe her when she says that “hard to explain to girls” was intended to be humor. Someone of Shuttleworth’s presence and visibility needs to learn to choose his words more carefully, however, since they will inevitably be reported in print, when the real intentions behind them have to stand without any other context.

Like other people on this list I had hopes that this matter would be put to sleep by a brief apology, but apparently Shuttleworth feels that no apology is needed. Fair enough. It’s obviously hard to explain diversity issues to South Africans (by which, obviously, I don’t intend to denigrate any particular nationality: I could just as easily have said “people who can’t be bothered to learn about diversity issues”). Is the real intent of those words clear? How can you say, without knowing me, whether I am a racist? Yet those who do will (I trust) tell you I am not.

No, we’re tired of it too. I’ve been beating my head against this wall for about 2-3 days now. I used to lurk a lot and not say anything, and anyone who has been doing this for longer (being vocal and active) has mad props from me because my brain is currently bleeding from just 2-3 active days.

@ mookiemu

This is what happens when someone comes in and basically gives the same reasons why you shouldn’t be doing what your doing, the ones you’ve been hearing for years.

This is a prime example of the witch hunt. Because other people won’t bother to read up on the facts then you shouldn’t do what you’re doing.

Also if there had been a reading of the other comments there are many references to people who also approached privately. Last time I checked (which was a couple of minutes ago) there is no apology to be found.

Also the “I’m not telling you to do X but” tends to mean you’re exactly doing just that.

That should can’t oppress. Not the double negative.

Or you can just say that I’m talking in Renaissance English where a double negative just enforced its negativity.

Please note, that members of an oppressed class can’t not oppress the oppressors.

We live in a Patriarchy. Guys are doing just fine thanks. Why?

You see that ad on the bus? That’s for us.
You see that TV show? That’s for us too.
You see those “women’s” magazines? That’s for us too.

I could keep going all day with that but I’m just going to point out right now that this is a space where women who deal with entitled attitudes like that one you just spoke.

Offensive? The comments here have been trying to explain to people who pattently refuse to understand that even off-handed comments can affect people, particularly when they are comments that are a repetition of the cultural oppression that a group experiences every single day.

What was asked for in the letter was an, “I’m sorry I said that I’ll try to do better in the future.” That’s it. If that’s offensive then no one could try to call anyone when they’re excerising their privilege. I know that when I mess up, I want to be called on it so that I can try to not make that same mistake again.

What I don’t understand and I’m hoping that someone can explain to me is: How does this notion of putting another person in a position of “privilege” which they are able to abuse not place your own marginalized group in the “victim” category?

You used the term“marginalised.”

That should be answer enough. Trust me, no group marginalises itself– it’s not a position of choice. You’re saying that if women pretend that men as a group have no power to harass, or harm, or embarrass or discomfort the few women within a group– then men won’t have that power anymore–

Nice bit of magical thinking there.

Do you really believe that these lingustic misapplications are an active attempt to subjugate women, or are they a symptom of a larger problem, and if the latter, how does highlighting the symptom and asking for an apology help the root of the problem?

yes, these linguistic misapplications DO contribute to the subjection of women, yes, this is a symptom of a larger problem, and yes, we treat these large problems symptomatically.
Its like picking up pieces of garbage; you do it piece by piece. You have to live in that space; what will you do, wait for a hurricane to blow it all away at once?

I find that when insulted the most effective way to staunch the insulter is to simply ignore them and wait for their foolishness to become self-evident. Is my anecdotal experience contradicted by some peer reviewed research of which I am unaware?

You offer anecdote and demand per-review in exchange? A gentle jest, withal!

but in my own anecdotal experience, (spanning more than fifty years in fact) waiting for the fool to realise his foolishness is a great way to gather belly-button lint. And when the foolishness is along the lines of ” the girls don’t mind what we say about them,” and the girls never tell him that they DO mind– well, that bellybutton lint will fill a king-size bed pillow before any man figures it out for himself.
A more extreme version;
“Well she must like being slapped around, she’s never tried to stop me!”

No, I mean the questions in very good faith, and I wasn’t intentionally employing any rhetorical devices (although apparently that’s exceedingly easy to do by accident.) I believe I’ve read the entirety of this thread.. I don’t find the answers.

So, I’ll politely excuse your rather thinly veiled ad hominem if you can show me where they are answered.

If my suspicions are correct, then answering them would be stupid.

My question in return;

Do you understand that the rhetorical device of asking assumptive and leading questions will inevitably be perceived as insulting, no matter how delicately phrased they are– especially when those questions have been addressed over and over already, on this very page?

The feedback we received was hardly tuned towards perceived sexism, although may have been so due to subconscious pressure. (The old “Math and Science is for boys” meme deterring women from Math and Science). The conscious responses were far more telling – Computing just didn’t seem /worthwhile/ to the girls (yes, girls, they were teens).

When pressed we found passing interest in related fields. GIS. Bioinformatics. But never in programming. The lack of appeal had a myriad of explanations forthcoming – most centered around the mental image of a solitary hacker working day in, night out, endlessly.

Not a male hacker, per se, but a lonely, sad, lifeless hacker. Fighting that image was hard, and convincing them to enroll in computing was difficult as a result. Even so, we managed one of the highest female entrant rates in Canada. 14%.

A DC-area branch of Women in Tech has a Girls in Tech subcommittee focused at outreach to middle and high school girls. They had me on a panel a few months ago talking about how thanks to being involved in FOSS I have made friends all over the world. I really hope that helped combat that stereotype for the 300 girls in the room.