Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML

[David Woodhouse]

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 â 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 â 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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature