The Latest Round Of GNOME's Outreach Program For Women Wraps Up

[phoronix]

Phoronix: The Latest Round Of GNOME's Outreach Program For Women Wraps Up

The ninth and latest round of GNOME's Outreach Program for Women (OPW) came to an end yesterday...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNOME-OPW-ROUND-9-ENDS

[uid313]

I think that they should stop giving special treatment to women (or anyone else) and just treat everyone equally or by meritocracy.

My opinion is that these programs are sexist and discriminatory.

[iterativ]

I think that they should stop giving special treatment to women (or anyone else) and just treat everyone equally or by meritocracy.

My opinion is that these programs are sexist and discriminatory.

Maybe it is so.

But again, can we just blind ourselves to the injustice and corrupt society ? Let's state some facts. Land owners are 99% men, 1% women. Like the land should be owned by anyone... Let's use a so called developed country (not a "3rd world" one) for another example. In USA women earn 70-80% of what men do for the SAME job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2..._United_States


The objective is not any kind of special treatment, but to raise awareness, point the facts, trigger thought processes, maybe change for the better.

[staggerlee]

I think that they should stop giving special treatment to women (or anyone else) and just treat everyone equally or by meritocracy.

My opinion is that these programs are sexist and discriminatory.

I totally agree with you. The days of women not getting equality are over or at least grossly exaggerated. http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-m...-will-not-die/ http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...e-2173980.html this is just the tip of the iceberg. Real women don't get ahead by holding men down or receiving special privileges and incentives just because they have a vagina.

[uid313]

Maybe it is so.

But again, can we just blind ourselves to the injustice and corrupt society ? Let's state some facts. Land owners are 99% men, 1% women. Like the land should be owned by anyone... Let's use a so called developed country (not a "3rd world" one) for another example. In USA women earn 70-80% of what men do for the SAME job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2..._United_States


The objective is not any kind of special treatment, but to raise awareness, point the facts, trigger thought processes, maybe change for the better.

Land is inherited. If land owners are 99% men and 1% women it says nothing about current state of affairs and equality. It is just an indication of history and does not accurately reflect present time.

Also most land are owned not by men, but by the rich. So it has more to do with who is rich, not their gender. What does it matter that 99% of land is owned by men, when its only 1% who owns that? For the rest of 98% men it means nothing to them.

How does giving women (or any group) special treatment solve any problems?

Also people have the misconception when reading percentages that because men is overrepresented in certain fields or that more rich people are men that it has anything to do with inequality. People have the misconception that 50% men and 50% women would be mean equality, justice and fairness.

Studies have shown that men are more prone to taking risks. This is why more end up dead in accidents, more men are homeless, and why more men are successful. Because men take risks and sometimes it pays off leads to success.

[AndyChow]

Wow, I was going to reply, but then I thought maybe I should keep my mouth shut. Now I'm not that afraid to voice my opinion.

I hope more women work in IT. And special programs can help. But it's not exactly like women were ever oppressed or denied working in IT. In medicine for example, they used to laugh when a woman wanted to become a doctor, and would suggest she become a nurse. Yet, there aren't any outreach programs to ensure more women become doctors. Heck, I bet you in the next 30 years more than half of doctors will be women. Because prestige and money.

Most women don't want to work in IT because they don't like it. We can pay them more, speed track their career, and sure, more will join. But it won't change their interest in the field. It's kind of like female gamers (am I really going to open that can of worms?)

The women I have met in IT, few and far between, usually immigrants, were probably amongst the best, most highly qualified people I have worked with. Because they paid attention to the demands of the clients and worked to fulfill the solution the client wanted, not what they thought was best (which is why a lot of extremely smart people fail).

Anyway, these programs serve no purpose except to attract people that aren't interested in the job in the first place. I see a lot of IT companies now have female CEOs. I don't see how they can claim discrimination or exclusion. If you're not interested, the promise of a stable lucrative career is a trap. I bet there are more women executive than black executives in IT.

[Grayswan]

[QUOTE=iterativ;477251]Maybe it is so.

But again, can we just blind ourselves to the injustice and corrupt society ? Let's state some facts. Land owners are 99% men, 1% women. Like the land should be owned by anyone... Let's use a so called developed country (not a "3rd world" one) for another example. In USA women earn 70-80% of what men do for the SAME job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2..._United_States

These lies have been debunked so many times, yet we see them still being pushed as facts. Politifact says your pants are on fire, liar:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/05/oxfam-ireland/do-women-own-1-worlds-land-no/

[jheretic]

Land is inherited. If land owners are 99% men and 1% women it says nothing about current state of affairs and equality. It is just an indication of history and does not accurately reflect present time.

Also most land are owned not by men, but by the rich. So it has more to do with who is rich, not their gender. What does it matter that 99% of land is owned by men, when its only 1% who owns that? For the rest of 98% men it means nothing to them.

How does giving women (or any group) special treatment solve any problems?

Also people have the misconception when reading percentages that because men is overrepresented in certain fields or that more rich people are men that it has anything to do with inequality. People have the misconception that 50% men and 50% women would be mean equality, justice and fairness.

Studies have shown that men are more prone to taking risks. This is why more end up dead in accidents, more men are homeless, and why more men are successful. Because men take risks and sometimes it pays off leads to success.

So your position is that sexism is dead, it's just that men have inherent qualities that are more suited to achieving success? Isn't such a position itself sexist, and indicative of the continued need for feminist activism around under-representation of women?

[jheretic]

Wow, I was going to reply, but then I thought maybe I should keep my mouth shut. Now I'm not that afraid to voice my opinion.

I hope more women work in IT. And special programs can help. But it's not exactly like women were ever oppressed or denied working in IT. In medicine for example, they used to laugh when a woman wanted to become a doctor, and would suggest she become a nurse. Yet, there aren't any outreach programs to ensure more women become doctors. Heck, I bet you in the next 30 years more than half of doctors will be women. Because prestige and money.

Most women don't want to work in IT because they don't like it. We can pay them more, speed track their career, and sure, more will join. But it won't change their interest in the field. It's kind of like female gamers (am I really going to open that can of worms?)

The women I have met in IT, few and far between, usually immigrants, were probably amongst the best, most highly qualified people I have worked with. Because they paid attention to the demands of the clients and worked to fulfill the solution the client wanted, not what they thought was best (which is why a lot of extremely smart people fail).

Anyway, these programs serve no purpose except to attract people that aren't interested in the job in the first place. I see a lot of IT companies now have female CEOs. I don't see how they can claim discrimination or exclusion. If you're not interested, the promise of a stable lucrative career is a trap. I bet there are more women executive than black executives in IT.

In my view, careers in technology are generally the kinds of lucrative, knowledge-based jobs that are still growing within countries like the U.S. where various kinds of blue collar work are declining. You cite the fact that it is desirable for women to become doctors because of the prestige and money, but compared to other opportunities many technical jobs are also desirable. If women are not flocking to technical jobs, it's because of such reasons as the attitudes of those industries being unwelcoming to women due to institutionalized prejudices. Introducing these fields as an opportunity through programs like GNOME OPW is meant to combat exactly the kind of work culture that supports those prejudices.

In any event, it's not like GNOME OPW is happening in a vacuum. The GNOME Foundation is offering the program, and individuals and programs are participating, because they want the involvement of women in technology, women who of course make up half of the population of the world. If half of the population of the world is not involved in your work and your industry, it would be ridiculous not to try and create programs to change that; it's the most natural thing in the world.

I work in a technical field and I am actively seeking how to involve more women in my work. The women that I am fortunate enough to work with are just as capable as I am if not more so, and there is no reason inherent to women that they would not pursue technical work to the same extent as men due to interest, compensation, or both. My organization participates in GNOME OPW, and I am extremely grateful for the work of both the people running the program and the women participating in it, and I think it's great that Phoronix covers it.

[pininety]

But again, can we just blind ourselves to the injustice and corrupt society ? Let's state some facts. Land owners are 99% men, 1% women. Like the land should be owned by anyone... Let's use a so called developed country (not a "3rd world" one) for another example. In USA women earn 70-80% of what men do for the SAME job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2..._United_States

First of all, if you even had bothered to read the article you are referring to, you would know that the "woman earn only 80% of what men do" is not for the same job and not for the same work time. Just look at the kind of jobs women and men take and you already see massive differences, both in pay and in risk. Due to this, the US has a 10:1 death ratio between men and women during work yet nobody would say that men are systemically killed in the workplace.
Also, 60% of all money in the USA is owned by woman and this percentage is increasing for the past decades. Would you say that males are systemically be keep away from owning money? I guess not.

The objective is not any kind of special treatment, but to raise awareness, point the facts, trigger thought processes, maybe change for the better.

No, this is just to get some nice PR points. If they were doing this program in Africa, I could see them raising awareness but in the US? Nope, not a chance. Face it, this is not about awareness, it is about good PR. "Look! We are doing a all women's program like everybody else! And we even include people who identify as women as well! Yeahhh!"

Last but not least, take my word with a piece of salt. There are a lot of places there females (and ironically enough males too) suffer a lot or have not the same rights as their "gender counterparts" (no idea if this is the proper English term but I guess you get the meaning). And we need to change this in my eyes. But please, do not not confuse the situation in Africa with the situation in America.

I hope more women work in IT. And special programs can help. But it's not exactly like women were ever oppressed or denied working in IT. In medicine for example, they used to laugh when a woman wanted to become a doctor, and would suggest she become a nurse. Yet, there aren't any outreach programs to ensure more women become doctors. Heck, I bet you in the next 30 years more than half of doctors will be women. Because prestige and money.

30 years? Here in Germany, 70% of all new medical doctors are female right now. Wanna see our "Oh damn, we need more males as doctors" programs?
Guess you are out of luck because we are still spending all our money on increasing the amount of female doctors because equality or something.

Do not get me wrong. I could really not care less who is programming my software, male, female, trigender, nogender, unicorn or alien from mars.
As long as the software is good, I will us it.
But I really have a problem with the bloody double standard then it comes how females and males are treated.