Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu On 12/18/2012 12:27 PM, MJ Ray wrote: Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have no platform in code4lib? If what you mean is if everyone agrees with you that a group created for women in tech is bad, then, no, pretty much nobody else here agrees with you. Of course that's not what I mean! I mean that if a group were women-only, men-only, white-only, senior-only or whatever-axis-you-like-only, then we feel it should be given no platform in anything code4lib. I am not sure if I'd call such a group deliberately discriminatory, Me neither, as previously mentioned... I'm glad to see more reassurance and hope that something will appear on libwomentech.tumblr. nor am I sure what qualifies as platform in code4lib, but for what A platform is any office, speaking slot, endorsement or so on. It's quite easy to find with a web search, but I'll assume Jonathan isn't trolling and try to summarise: no platform policies are a tool used by some organisations to exclude those acting against equality of opportunity. Here's one, which applied to a past employer of mine: In pursuance of these aims any individuals or members of organisation or groups known to hold racist or fascist views will not be allowed to stand for election to any NUS office, or attend, speak or otherwise participate in NUS conferences, meetings or any other NUS events, and NEC members will not share a public platform with an individual or member of a organisation or group known to hold racist or fascist views. -- http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/306/NUS%20Constitution.pdf [NUS = National Union of Students, NEC = National Executive Committee] you're really getting at, no, there is no clarity there, pretty much nobody else agrees with you there. I really hope that's not the case, that such groups aren't welcomed. Hope that clarifies, -- MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Spot on, totally agree :) Michele -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bess Sadler Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:24 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea ...Having a policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for harassment...These things are not really news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and how to make library technology more inclusive in general.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On 12/18/12 7:14 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote: Really? I haven't heard of them or seen them. Am I just really unobservant? Or am I seeing things but not realizing they are offensive? I can't speak for anyone else. I know that I've been in (non-code4lib) situations where I *was* that unobservant, that I missed what was going on in front of me because I was focused on something else. I've also experienced hearing things and, based on the reactions, believing that it was non-offensive, not even questioning whether it was offensive, only to find out later that several of the people present were very offended (for reasons that made sense to me when I gave it some thought). Also, many such incidents are by their nature not happening in large group situations, and not talked about openly by anyone involved. Not to knock the community, but I think that along with being very supportive and friendly, we are very analytical and detail-oriented. If an incident at code4lib had bothered me personally and I hadn't felt comfortable to make a public issue of it at the time, putting it on a wiki page and asking the community to analyze it probably wouldn't appeal to me. On the other hand, I don't want to squash the idea as a bad one. Making the uncomfortable event publicly known, even in an anonymous and no-consequences kind of way, might be empowering to some. YMMV. Joe Montibello, MLIS Library Systems Manager Dartmouth College Library 603.646.9394 joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
+1 from me, too Very well said, Bess. kc On 12/18/12 7:54 PM, Rosalyn Metz wrote: +1 #everything that bess said On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: I am not aware of any recent egregious issues and I don't think code4lib is a hotbed of misogynist behavior, certainly not compared to more mainstream tech conferences or something notorious like DefCon. Having a policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for harassment. It protects conference organizers legally, it gives us an agreed upon way to respond if incidents do arise, and having such a policy is a proven way to make conferences more welcoming to women and gender minorities. I am not comfortable discussing my individual experience in public more than I already have. I have acted as a lightning rod for these kinds of discussions in the past and I am not interested in playing that role again. I am not comfortable discussing specific incidents that have been related to me in confidence, and I am REALLY not interested in rehashing more public incidents, I think that would be a train wreck. As for what has happened that we're trying to address: Sometimes people make thougtless jokes. Sometimes people say alienating things without meaning to. Sometimes people do things they might later wish they hadn't done, because they were drunk, or having a good time, or never knew a certain word carried a certain connotation for some people. These things are not really news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and how to make library technology more inclusive in general. Bess On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Michele R Combs mrrot...@syr.edu wrote: Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO. Then the list can get back to code :) It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or SAA function or, heck, your basic office party). In that case, I submit that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life. Michele From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea ...Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)... -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Steve Marks steve.ma...@utoronto.ca This false equivalency gets bandied around quite a lot in academic circles (maybe elsewhere, but I lead a sheltered life). Let me assure you that there is a significant difference between what goes on in a standard pat leave and what goes on in a standard mat leave. Yes, I agree with drawing a line between standard leave and extended career-break child-rearing leave. I didn't mean to suggest a false equivalency so thanks for the help clarifying: the first bit of leave is necessarily different for the mother, for the biological reasons Steve outlines, and this is encoded in English law, 26 weeks of Ordinary Maternity Leave vs 2 weeks of Ordinary Paternity Leave. Extended leave is treated the same in law here, starting with 26 weeks of Additional *aternity Leave and I feel that's probably correct. https://www.gov.uk/maternity-leave https://www.gov.uk/paternityleave So I still suggest that the issues around child-related extended leave are not solely for women. I'm not arguing that there aren't many dads who do a great job of child rearing, but in your average, everyday, heteronormative context, this by default falls to the woman. [...] Probably, and we should not support that default by suggesting such extended-leave issues are only for libtechwomen, should we? Anyway, I hope you don't feel like people are piling on, MJ. I think it's a token of respect that every member of the code4lib community has for each other that folks *are* making the effort to understand and be understood. I sort of both do and don't. I do appreciate that people are making the effort, but I do worry that other minorities are collatoral damage of some vociferous support for this larger-minority single-issue group, that few seem to be supporting a strong anti-discrimination line and that it's not really clear what libtechwomen is yet. Which brings me to an aside on a sidebar: thanks to everyone who has sent private messages of support - mostly for good reasons, as well as a few for reasons I don't agree with :-/ - and sorry for not replying to each of them individually, but please consider posting in public. I understand why some people won't out themselves, especially when it would have far more life-changing consequences than the audio-visual damage I've admitted, but I hope everyone's allowed to express views publicly without prejudice or being challenged as to whether and which minority. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Hi MJ All, On 12/18/2012 4:42 AM, MJ Ray wrote: I sort of both do and don't. I do appreciate that people are making the effort, but I do worry that other minorities are collatoral damage of some vociferous support for this larger-minority single-issue group, that few seem to be supporting a strong anti-discrimination line and that it's not really clear what libtechwomen is yet. Everyone is definitely welcome to his/her own opinion. None of us are taking any offense to anyone expressing an opinion. By all means, it should be encouraged! However, I think some/many are taking offense to the implication that 'libtechwomen' is discriminatory or prejudice against men or minority groups just because its name includes women. That sort of implication would be the same as stating that code4lib is discriminatory or prejudice against non-coders or folks who don't work in libraries. Neither of these is true. Neither group is actively discriminating against anyone else, and I believe that both code4lib libtechwomen are attempting to be as inclusive as possible. MJ, I definitely agree with you that other minorities (AVI folks or whomever) should be allowed/encouraged to have similar support groups (and perhaps a more general code4libsupport group could be of use). The existence of a libtechwomen group doesn't disenfranchise others from creating similar support groups, or even just joining libtechwomen and talking with them about other minority issues (which I'm sure they'd welcome). In fact, the existence of one such support group should encourage others to create additional support groups. Each minority faces issues that are unique to their group. Women face their own unique issues in the technology landscape. AVI people also face their own unique issues in the technology landscape. It is true that there are surely common issues faced by multiple minority groups. But that doesn't mean that all minority issues for all minority groups must be discussed in a single support group. To call a group discriminatory just because they initially planned to concentrate on specific gender issues is just wrong (in my opinion). #libtechwomen is a support group, who's primary focus just happens to be gender issues in the library technology field. libtechwomen is actually not even entirely a sub-group of code4lib, but seems to be fashioning itself as a general support group across other library technology groups as well. It's not trying to block other minority issues from being discussed, or turn away other minority groups or even majority groups (men). If you want to discover for yourself, go take a look around at what has already begun with #libtechwomen. They are easy to find out there on the web: Twitter: https://twitter.com/libtechwomen IRC: #libtechwomen on irc.freenode.net Website: http://libtechwomen.tumblr.com/ Honestly, if others out there in the code4lib world see the need for other support groups, I'd encourage you to speak out help make it happen! Reach out on this list and see if others want to join you in a new support group. It can be as simple as creating a new IRC channel or similar. I think you'll find the code4lib community to be supportive in such ventures. I've always found this community to be surprisingly supportive as a whole. I think that's all I have to say on this matter. :) - Tim -- Tim Donohue Technical Lead for DSpace Project DuraSpace.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Tim Donohue tdono...@duraspace.org However, I think some/many are taking offense to the implication that 'libtechwomen' is discriminatory or prejudice against men or minority groups just because its name includes women. [...] To call a group discriminatory just because they initially planned to concentrate on specific gender issues is just wrong (in my opinion). Whoa! Hang on a minute! I don't think the name is great and I feel that we could do better for a first support group, but I'm not objecting to either of those. It's not just because either of those and it's rather frustrating if anyone still thinks it is. (Similarly in the other email from Steve, I never meant to suggest the completely spurious thing.) My objection arose because the opening post in this thread suggested it would be discriminatory: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212L=CODE4LIBF=S=P=166649 described it as a group for just women. There are later emails which claim otherwise. twitter.com/libtechwomen and http://libtechwomen.tumblr.com/ don't say either way, as far as I can see (if you'll excuse the pun). I don't really want to hop on IRC and ask because of past bad experiences with a previous group. Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have no platform in code4lib? And is it sure that libtechwomen is not the aforementioned women-only group? Thanks -- MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On 12/18/2012 12:27 PM, MJ Ray wrote: Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have no platform in code4lib? If what you mean is if everyone agrees with you that a group created for women in tech is bad, then, no, pretty much nobody else here agrees with you. I am not sure if I'd call such a group deliberately discriminatory, nor am I sure what qualifies as platform in code4lib, but for what you're really getting at, no, there is no clarity there, pretty much nobody else agrees with you there.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On 12/18/12 7:51 AM, Tim Donohue wrote: It's not trying to block other minority issues from being discussed, or turn away other minority groups or even majority groups (men). I want to thank everyone for being so thoughtful in this discussion. I do, however, want to make one factual point: women, per se, are not a minority. In fact, in the general population, we are a slight majority. [1] In libraries, of course, we are by far the majority. We are the minority in technology in general. It is NOT clear to me (yet) that we are an actual minority in library technology -- we simply do not know unless we do a count. It may be that male dominance in that area is an assumption rather than a fact. I say this as someone who worked in a library technology project that, over 20 years, was from 2/3 to 3/4 female, yet the men were considered techies and the women were... just there, even though they were coding and being DBAs, etc. We see what we have trained our eyes and minds to see (all of us, not just men). The study that Rosalyn did showed that women are less likely to consider themselves part of c4l than men, and I would bet that many do not consider themselves as techie as men in their environment. Note also there was a somewhat strong reaction to the statistic of 42% female (which we still cannot confirm or disprove) because it was unexpected. What if, just what if, there are more women in this field than we've thought? Knowing that women are not a minority actually makes the entire woman question more difficult because it requires one to think about inequality, not numbers. Inequality is the actual issue with many if not all of the groups that we refer to as minorities. Note that in many countries, the ruling group is statistically a minority, and the less equal group is in the majority. (And we may get there by 2060 if the population predictions are correct.) In summary, it's just not a numbers question. It's something much harder than that. kc [1] http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf (49.1 male/50.9 female, most recent US census) If you want to discover for yourself, go take a look around at what has already begun with #libtechwomen. They are easy to find out there on the web: Twitter: https://twitter.com/libtechwomen IRC: #libtechwomen on irc.freenode.net Website: http://libtechwomen.tumblr.com/ Honestly, if others out there in the code4lib world see the need for other support groups, I'd encourage you to speak out help make it happen! Reach out on this list and see if others want to join you in a new support group. It can be as simple as creating a new IRC channel or similar. I think you'll find the code4lib community to be supportive in such ventures. I've always found this community to be surprisingly supportive as a whole. I think that's all I have to say on this matter. :) - Tim -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
I believe the problem is that you somehow read that initial post proposing the IRC group as saying it would be exclusively for women. As far as I can tell, no one else read it that way. If that is your only concern, I believe you can be reassured. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:28 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Tim Donohue tdono...@duraspace.org However, I think some/many are taking offense to the implication that 'libtechwomen' is discriminatory or prejudice against men or minority groups just because its name includes women. [...] To call a group discriminatory just because they initially planned to concentrate on specific gender issues is just wrong (in my opinion). Whoa! Hang on a minute! I don't think the name is great and I feel that we could do better for a first support group, but I'm not objecting to either of those. It's not just because either of those and it's rather frustrating if anyone still thinks it is. (Similarly in the other email from Steve, I never meant to suggest the completely spurious thing.) My objection arose because the opening post in this thread suggested it would be discriminatory: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi- bin/wa?A2=ind1212L=CODE4LIBF=S=P=166649 described it as a group for just women. There are later emails which claim otherwise. twitter.com/libtechwomen and http://libtechwomen.tumblr.com/ don't say either way, as far as I can see (if you'll excuse the pun). I don't really want to hop on IRC and ask because of past bad experiences with a previous group. Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have no platform in code4lib? And is it sure that libtechwomen is not the aforementioned women-only group? Thanks -- MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Salvete! because they can't find an SO are outliers. C4l is a tech event. Do women really get treated that shabbily there? I'm guessing this is a yes, since several brave folks have indicated it. It doesn't mean that *you* are an offender, but it's clearly happening, or at least known to have happened in past. Cheers, Brooke
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
So far some brave folks have indeed indicated that, but without specifying any particular incidents. It seems to me it might be helpful if the actual incidents were related in some anonymous way (perhaps anonymous both to reporter and to 'offenders' involved)... because if the rest of us knew what was going on, we could be more alert to seeing it and stopping it (including possibly observing such behavior in ourselves and stopping ourselves for doing it, now that we realize how hurtful it can be). I realize some people have related incidents that happened at places other than code4lib, and perhaps that ought to be sufficient, but, clearly, many of us can think Oh, but that probably doens't happen at Code4Lib, even if it does. I also realize that this can quickly turn into a giant mess, which is why I'd suggest that any such stories be very vague and entirely anonymous as to all parties involved, to make this not a tribunal about particular incidents but just information sharing about Here are some things that have happened at code4lib related to gendery stuff, that made some people uncomfortable, just so you know what we're talking about. There doesn't need to be ANY discussion of the issues, and I think probably best if there isn't actually. But honestly, I've been scratching my head since Bess first brought this up, and Bess mentioned that harrasment-y incidents have happened at code4lib, and I'm thinking Really? I haven't heard of them or seen them. Am I just really unobservant? Or am I seeing things but not realizing they are offensive? Or what? I think it would be helpful to all of us wanting to stop such things from happening to know a _bit_ more specifically what sorts of things have happened. Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?) On 12/18/2012 6:41 PM, BWS Johnson wrote: Salvete! because they can't find an SO are outliers. C4l is a tech event. Do women really get treated that shabbily there? I'm guessing this is a yes, since several brave folks have indicated it. It doesn't mean that *you* are an offender, but it's clearly happening, or at least known to have happened in past. Cheers, Brooke
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO. Then the list can get back to code :) It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or SAA function or, heck, your basic office party). In that case, I submit that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life. Michele From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea ...Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)...
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
I am not aware of any recent egregious issues and I don't think code4lib is a hotbed of misogynist behavior, certainly not compared to more mainstream tech conferences or something notorious like DefCon. Having a policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for harassment. It protects conference organizers legally, it gives us an agreed upon way to respond if incidents do arise, and having such a policy is a proven way to make conferences more welcoming to women and gender minorities. I am not comfortable discussing my individual experience in public more than I already have. I have acted as a lightning rod for these kinds of discussions in the past and I am not interested in playing that role again. I am not comfortable discussing specific incidents that have been related to me in confidence, and I am REALLY not interested in rehashing more public incidents, I think that would be a train wreck. As for what has happened that we're trying to address: Sometimes people make thougtless jokes. Sometimes people say alienating things without meaning to. Sometimes people do things they might later wish they hadn't done, because they were drunk, or having a good time, or never knew a certain word carried a certain connotation for some people. These things are not really news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and how to make library technology more inclusive in general. Bess On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Michele R Combs mrrot...@syr.edu wrote: Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO. Then the list can get back to code :) It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or SAA function or, heck, your basic office party). In that case, I submit that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life. Michele From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea ...Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)...
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
+1 #everything that bess said On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: I am not aware of any recent egregious issues and I don't think code4lib is a hotbed of misogynist behavior, certainly not compared to more mainstream tech conferences or something notorious like DefCon. Having a policy in place (which was my only request in that original email, and which we now have, yay!) is a good idea regardless of whether any individual incident in the past meets anyone's individual criteria for harassment. It protects conference organizers legally, it gives us an agreed upon way to respond if incidents do arise, and having such a policy is a proven way to make conferences more welcoming to women and gender minorities. I am not comfortable discussing my individual experience in public more than I already have. I have acted as a lightning rod for these kinds of discussions in the past and I am not interested in playing that role again. I am not comfortable discussing specific incidents that have been related to me in confidence, and I am REALLY not interested in rehashing more public incidents, I think that would be a train wreck. As for what has happened that we're trying to address: Sometimes people make thougtless jokes. Sometimes people say alienating things without meaning to. Sometimes people do things they might later wish they hadn't done, because they were drunk, or having a good time, or never knew a certain word carried a certain connotation for some people. These things are not really news-worthy individually. I would prefer instead to put energy into knowing how to respond to problematic behavior in the moment, how to discuss questions of privilege and inclusiveness without creating hostility, and how to make library technology more inclusive in general. Bess On Dec 18, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Michele R Combs mrrot...@syr.edu wrote: Much better to do it that way than on the list, IMHO. Then the list can get back to code :) It's possible that the ratio of idiots at a code4lib function is comparable to the ratio of idiots anywhere else (e.g., an ALA conference or SAA function or, heck, your basic office party). In that case, I submit that no special method of attack or treatment is required -- just the same approach used when one encounter jerks in any other area of one's life. Michele From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:14 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea ...Is this a good idea, or just a disaster trainwreck lying in wait? If it's a good idea, we could easily set up a wiki page where people can easily anonymously describe incidents (again, what I'm going for is NOT calling specific people out, but just giving us an idea of what it is that has happened that we're trying to stop from happening, you know?)...
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Robin ++. MJ - I can't barely respond to you. This is rather upsetting because the very group of people that want and need and are willing to gather to create such an initiative are being told no. I don't think a group that offers support and learning focused toward a marginalized membership base is discrimination. There are many women in tech groups and they exist for a reason and work well. People can't learn if they don't feel comfortable and safe. If people wonder why women feel intimidated and not part of things- it's this attitude right here. How sad. On 12/13/12 2:09 PM, Robin Schaaf robin.schaa...@nd.edu wrote: MJ, when you put everything under Equality, it dilutes each individual purpose. I find this type of response aggravating, actually (and enough that I'm actually sending an email (which I never do) about this!) Women have different issues than other groups - even stuff like when you have a kid and take a year off, how do you keep up on your mad programming skillz? Or program with pregnancy-brain? We often have different ways to look at things - obviously not less, but different. But in a predominantly male field it's easy to get lost or feel like an outsider (or heck, to be assumed in marketing!) If you want to be inclusive, you need to have a supportive environment. It's probably hard for anyone to imagine themselves a part of community when being outnumbered 20 to 1, especially with responses that dismiss something that multiple women are interested in. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:26 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: There have been some contradictory statements made about #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no requirement that one be female to participate, [...] That is good to know and a big improvement. The suggestion has been made that the name libtechwomen might not be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and welcome suggestions. I suggest libtechEquality - any progress with other suggestions? Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com Are there folks out there who think that you can only be in one IRC room at a time? If I want to be in the #190cmtall room, nobody in #code4lib would know, nor would it be any of their business. Are there people here who really feel threatened by this? That's not really a similar thing, but might indicate other problems. Would we not be troubled by code4libanything, just because it could be kept hidden and you could use code4lib anyway? Regards, -- MJ Ray Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Hi All, Not trying to keep this thread going on forever. But, I do want to say that, based on the discussion thus far, I do believe that MJ's opinion is in the minority. At least, from what I've heard, this seems to be the case. Personally, I feel that it's absolutely wonderful that #libtechwomen has been created, and I think it can only benefit code4lib and other technology/library groups by encouraging more involvement from women minorities in general. I don't see this as a fragmentation of our community, but rather a natural growth into interest/support groups which can better concentrate on specific issues provide support around such issues. We have to admit that code4lib has grown rapidly over the years, and as it continues to grow it will become harder harder to hear all the voices/opinions/issues without providing a place for discussions that is NOT #code4lib IRC. (No offense meant to #code4lib IRC. As a chatroom grows in membership, it will naturally become a bit more intimidating to newbies. No matter how much you try to be welcoming, no newbie wants to come across the wrong way / say the wrong thing in front of 100+ tech folks from throughout the world.) So, yay for #libtechwomen all those who have had the guts to get it started! It's obviously a much needed discussion support space (as also made evident from this continued thread). I hope the code4lib community can encourage even more such spaces in the future. - Tim -- Tim Donohue Technical Lead for DSpace Project DuraSpace.org On 12/17/2012 12:20 PM, Lisa H Kurt wrote: Robin ++. MJ - I can't barely respond to you. This is rather upsetting because the very group of people that want and need and are willing to gather to create such an initiative are being told no. I don't think a group that offers support and learning focused toward a marginalized membership base is discrimination. There are many women in tech groups and they exist for a reason and work well. People can't learn if they don't feel comfortable and safe. If people wonder why women feel intimidated and not part of things- it's this attitude right here. How sad. On 12/13/12 2:09 PM, Robin Schaaf robin.schaa...@nd.edu wrote: MJ, when you put everything under Equality, it dilutes each individual purpose. I find this type of response aggravating, actually (and enough that I'm actually sending an email (which I never do) about this!) Women have different issues than other groups - even stuff like when you have a kid and take a year off, how do you keep up on your mad programming skillz? Or program with pregnancy-brain? We often have different ways to look at things - obviously not less, but different. But in a predominantly male field it's easy to get lost or feel like an outsider (or heck, to be assumed in marketing!) If you want to be inclusive, you need to have a supportive environment. It's probably hard for anyone to imagine themselves a part of community when being outnumbered 20 to 1, especially with responses that dismiss something that multiple women are interested in. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:26 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: There have been some contradictory statements made about #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no requirement that one be female to participate, [...] That is good to know and a big improvement. The suggestion has been made that the name libtechwomen might not be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and welcome suggestions. I suggest libtechEquality - any progress with other suggestions? Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com Are there folks out there who think that you can only be in one IRC room at a time? If I want to be in the #190cmtall room, nobody in #code4lib would know, nor would it be any of their business. Are there people here who really feel threatened by this? That's not really a similar thing, but might indicate other problems. Would we not be troubled by code4libanything, just because it could be kept hidden and you could use code4lib anyway? Regards, -- MJ Ray Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Tim Donohue tdono...@duraspace.org Not trying to keep this thread going on forever. But, I do want to say that, based on the discussion thus far, I do believe that MJ's opinion is in the minority. At least, from what I've heard, this seems to be the case. Personally, I feel that it's absolutely wonderful that #libtechwomen has been created, and I think it can only benefit code4lib and other technology/library groups by encouraging more involvement from women minorities in general. Of course I'm in the minority! That was part of my point! Women is currently a minority in this community, right? But women is a large enough minority to make a really bad idea stick, such as another space that discriminates in their favour. I'm not sure if libtechwomen's creation is good or not. I'm confused whether libtechwomen discriminates or not, having heard both claims now... so don't necessarily apply this to that unless you're sure. I also don't think a womens-issues-only group will help minorities in general. Other minorities, such as audio-visual impaired (AVI) people, are even smaller minorities. I'd love to work on opening code4lib up to minorities in general. However, libtechwomen probably means we'll be cursed with single-minority groups for a few of the larger minorities - and quite apart from the inefficiency of a group solely for the AVI minority (we sometimes need members of the majority to help contact people who have locked us out of their code, which is why fixtheweb.net is so great), sidelining AVI in interest/support groups is also a really poor way to open up the mainstream for access for all. Even if the interest/support group can open the door, it's not unusual for someone else to shut it again in error. On 12/17/2012 12:20 PM, Lisa H Kurt wrote: MJ - I can't barely respond to you. This is rather upsetting because the very group of people that want and need and are willing to gather to create such an initiative are being told no. I don't think a group that offers support and learning focused toward a marginalized membership base is discrimination. There are many women in tech groups and they exist for a reason and work well. People can't learn if they don't feel comfortable and safe. If people wonder why women feel intimidated and not part of things- it's this attitude right here. How sad. I can't barely respond to this, either. I've only done it once or twice before and it's ended pretty badly before with PROJECTNAME women groups that are shadows of what they could be, but I really felt that code4lib could be persuded not to jump from an anti-harrassment policy straight into creating a single-sex group. I agree that a group that offers support and learning focused toward a marginalized membership NEED NOT be discrimination. I'm unsure whether this one is now or not, but some womens-issues groups are discriminating: some are anti-men - and in some cases, even anti-transwomen. Discriminatory groups are really counter-productive and those groups should be opposed by all minorities - even by women who believe in equality. There's a big difference between unconscious discrimination and deliberately creating a discriminatory group. I'm sorry if anyone feels intimidated (I'm really not scary), but being a marginalized minority does not give you a free pass from other minorities that you're failing to show solidarity with. On 12/13/12 2:09 PM, Robin Schaaf robin.schaa...@nd.edu wrote: MJ, when you put everything under Equality, it dilutes each individual purpose. I find this type of response aggravating, actually (and enough that I'm actually sending an email (which I never do) about this!) I did say it wasn't a great name... but I believe that most minorities are strengthened by solidarity and collaboration, not diluted. Some minorities are too small, too easy for a careless majority to dismiss and ignore if they try to stand alone, even though the changes needed are very modest. A lot of the issues faced have striking similarities in some aspects. Women have different issues than other groups - even stuff like when you have a kid and take a year off, how do you keep up on your mad programming skillz? Or program with pregnancy-brain? I'll grant you pregnancy-brain is probably only found in women, but some men take a year (or more) off to look after a kid and issues around that are not unique to women. It's actually pretty disappointing anyone would suggest that only women take child-related career breaks nowadays, but I guess this is a global group. [...] If you want to be inclusive, you need to have a supportive environment. It's probably hard for anyone to imagine themselves a part of community when being outnumbered 20 to 1, especially with responses that dismiss something that multiple women are interested in. I felt I was part of this community, even though I'm probably very outnumbered (A+VI people are 24-to-1 in
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Women have different issues than other groups - even stuff like when you have a kid and take a year off, how do you keep up on your mad programming skillz? Or program with pregnancy-brain? I'll grant you pregnancy-brain is probably only found in women, but some men take a year (or more) off to look after a kid and issues around that are not unique to women. It's actually pretty disappointing anyone would suggest that only women take child-related career breaks nowadays, but I guess this is a global group. I am another person who doesn't weigh in on threads like this often, but I think this bears some comment, and as someone not involved in the main strand of discussion, I feel like I can address this as a sidebar without derailing the whole conversation. I do have a point, bear with me. This false equivalency gets bandied around quite a lot in academic circles (maybe elsewhere, but I lead a sheltered life). Let me assure you that there is a significant difference between what goes on in a standard pat leave and what goes on in a standard mat leave. Let us not forget that the entire process usually kicks off with a fully formed being being removed from the mother's body, either through a bodily orifice, or surgically. Either way, it's the mother who has to deal with the *very real* medical consequences of this miraculous yet historically very deadly event. Quite often, the first part of a mat leave is spent just recovering from same. Then of course, there is the fact that you have this new life form who pretty much needs to be held by you in order to live. In a plurality of cases, this means also being a walking food dispenser, but in any case it means close, constant supervision and lots of body contact. I'm not arguing that there aren't many dads who do a great job of child rearing, but in your average, everyday, heteronormative context, this by default falls to the woman. Bringing it back to the academic context, it's not rare at all to see dads on pat leave back in the office working at (sometimes, but not always) reduced capacity, sometimes from day two or three. I have rarely if ever seen women on mat leave come into the office; they are busy dealing with all the issues above, which mat leave was invented to help deal with in the first place. I will not even get into the dynamics of missing years in CVs and their implications for women who take mat leaves. Suffice to say, this is a real problem in the academic world, and tenure committees seem to have this weird blind spot around mat leaves. So to my point: why am I bringing this up in this thread? Because when a topic like this comes up in general communities, it often has to be explained, just like this. For the marginal participant in a community, who might or might not start a discussion around these topics, how much less likely would they be to do so if they knew they were going to have to explain the particulars of why pregnancy and maternity are hard for professionals in our society? I can almost guarantee you this is already top of mind -- said participant probably does not want to have to unravel this whole messy skein of social and biological implications in an email thread with 3500 people. But they might be willing to ask their questions in a group that shares a common understanding of the issues and can talk about them without having to justify themselves or start from first principles. In a way, it's a lot like the reason a community like code4lib (or any other community) exists in the first place. Otherwise, we could just discuss everything on AllLibrariansEver-L. Anyway, I hope you don't feel like people are piling on, MJ. I think it's a token of respect that every member of the code4lib community has for each other that folks *are* making the effort to understand and be understood. Needless to say, I support wholeheartedly the idea of libtechwomen or any other venue -- if there are folks who feel it is needed, then that needs to be respected. Steve -- Stephen Marks Digital Preservation Librarian Scholars Portal Ontario Council of University Libraries step...@scholarsportal.info 416.946.0300 Fearlessness is better than a faint heart for any man who puts his nose out of doors. The length of my life and the day of my death were fated long ago. --Skírnismál
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
MJ, when you put everything under Equality, it dilutes each individual purpose. I find this type of response aggravating, actually (and enough that I'm actually sending an email (which I never do) about this!) Women have different issues than other groups - even stuff like when you have a kid and take a year off, how do you keep up on your mad programming skillz? Or program with pregnancy-brain? We often have different ways to look at things - obviously not less, but different. But in a predominantly male field it's easy to get lost or feel like an outsider (or heck, to be assumed in marketing!) If you want to be inclusive, you need to have a supportive environment. It's probably hard for anyone to imagine themselves a part of community when being outnumbered 20 to 1, especially with responses that dismiss something that multiple women are interested in. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:26 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: There have been some contradictory statements made about #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no requirement that one be female to participate, [...] That is good to know and a big improvement. The suggestion has been made that the name libtechwomen might not be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and welcome suggestions. I suggest libtechEquality - any progress with other suggestions? Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com Are there folks out there who think that you can only be in one IRC room at a time? If I want to be in the #190cmtall room, nobody in #code4lib would know, nor would it be any of their business. Are there people here who really feel threatened by this? That's not really a similar thing, but might indicate other problems. Would we not be troubled by code4libanything, just because it could be kept hidden and you could use code4lib anyway? Regards, -- MJ Ray Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: There have been some contradictory statements made about #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no requirement that one be female to participate, [...] That is good to know and a big improvement. The suggestion has been made that the name libtechwomen might not be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and welcome suggestions. I suggest libtechEquality - any progress with other suggestions? Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com Are there folks out there who think that you can only be in one IRC room at a time? If I want to be in the #190cmtall room, nobody in #code4lib would know, nor would it be any of their business. Are there people here who really feel threatened by this? That's not really a similar thing, but might indicate other problems. Would we not be troubled by code4libanything, just because it could be kept hidden and you could use code4lib anyway? Regards, -- MJ Ray Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Wilhelmina Randtke rand...@gmail.com MJ Ray, OK, ctrl+F did not work, because the email said for just but you said just for. Actually, no two words in your quote were in sequence in the email you tried to quote. So much for ctrl+F. I don't much like this attempt to Fisk me over putting a inside the quote. It's also largely beside the point: that a group for just women would be discriminatory and should be Not In Our Name. ctrl+F is forward-character... not sure what you mean there. I misquoted a group for just women and quoted gender-specific issues won't be addressed which you can see at https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212L=CODE4LIBF=S=P=172323 and the thread opener said a small support and discussion group for just women and gender-specific issues won't be addressed https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212L=CODE4LIBF=S=P=166649 - most of the words in the quotes are in sequence, and the source text is readily available too. Those ideas should be rejected. Casual discrimination against women and disabled doesn't mean you get a pass to say none of this matters. Interacting specifically with other people who have to live your issues and don't just look at them intellectually (this interaction is what the women here are trying to do) is not quite the same as denying that other people face issues (what both of us have experienced at some point). I'm not denying there are issues. I'm saying code4libwomen would be another issue itself, rather than reducing them - it's a polluted snake oil cure, making the sickness worse. Personally, I also think that we shouldn't divide the equality campaigns up, as we've more similarity than difference, but that's a different point and it's not awful if we have to continue in silos. If it helps, I use Webbie and Thunder to audio browse websites I work on, because then I am more likely to notice glaringly obvious things like the recaptcha. But, yeah, going into pretty much any subscription database with only audio from a screen reader is a lost cause. Thanks for your consideration. I wish you could help open up wiki.code4lib.org - I can sign up for many things unaided, but maybe the Equality Act here means access is slightly better. Regards, -- MJ Ray Setchey, Norfolk, England
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
MJ Ray, OK, ctrl+F did not work, because the email said for just but you said just for. Actually, no two words in your quote were in sequence in the email you tried to quote. So much for ctrl+F. Casual discrimination against women and disabled doesn't mean you get a pass to say none of this matters. Interacting specifically with other people who have to live your issues and don't just look at them intellectually (this interaction is what the women here are trying to do) is not quite the same as denying that other people face issues (what both of us have experienced at some point). If it helps, I use Webbie and Thunder to audio browse websites I work on, because then I am more likely to notice glaringly obvious things like the recaptcha. But, yeah, going into pretty much any subscription database with only audio from a screen reader is a lost cause. -Wilhelmina Randtke On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Wilhelmina Randtke asked: When you say someone referred to a group just for women, did you mean when Bohyun Kim said interests in a space for women? Because if you did, then you should not have used quotes, since you were not quoting. If that language you don't like came from somewhere else, then please be more specific, because I didn't see it at the start of this thread that I'm emailing on. That language is in the second paragraph of the email dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:13:47 + from Bohyun Kim, but I apologise for having put the a in the quote marks. It should have been outside them, as I cut part of a small support and discussion group for just women. I guess I hit the editing keys badly on Friday. It's very disappointing that no-one else seems willing to challenge that behaviour and so many are actively supporting it. I feel like we're still in the dark ages. Two wrongs do not make a right and two discriminations - one unconscious and one conscious - does not make equality. Joshua Gomez suggested: [...] And I don't think that reverse discrimination is the true concern of most of those that have voiced opinions against a sub-community for women (at least I hope not). I don't think that suggesting everyone who disagrees with one's view is insincere or dishonest or something is a good idea. Personally, my concern isn't that it is reverse discrimination - it's that it is still discrimination. I don't feel that past sins excuse further ones. [...] And since I am not a member of the group that has been discriminated against I don't think I or anyone else not in that group should try to dissuade them from doing what is in their best interest. I am not a member of *that* group that has been discriminated against, but I am a member of one minority that is routinely discriminated against in a pretty direct way - code4lib's wiki suggests we are not human, as I mentioned in another mail on Friday: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212L=CODE4LIBD=0P=167926 - and I am not dissuading women from doing what is in their best interest, but I believe setting up another discriminatory group is not in anyone's best interests. The best thing would be to do similar as we do for accessibility and have mixed groups like fixtheweb.net working together to dismantle the barriers. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
I really don't see how setting up a new IRC channel (or tumblr, or any other forum) to encourage and promote the inclusion of women is discriminatory. You keep on using that term, and accusing others of prejudice, but you have shown no proof. -Esme -- Esme Cowles escow...@ucsd.edu They extend copyrights perpetually. They don't get how that in itself is a form of theft. -- Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture On 12/10/2012, at 8:30 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Wilhelmina Randtke asked: When you say someone referred to a group just for women, did you mean when Bohyun Kim said interests in a space for women? Because if you did, then you should not have used quotes, since you were not quoting. If that language you don't like came from somewhere else, then please be more specific, because I didn't see it at the start of this thread that I'm emailing on. That language is in the second paragraph of the email dated Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:13:47 + from Bohyun Kim, but I apologise for having put the a in the quote marks. It should have been outside them, as I cut part of a small support and discussion group for just women. I guess I hit the editing keys badly on Friday. It's very disappointing that no-one else seems willing to challenge that behaviour and so many are actively supporting it. I feel like we're still in the dark ages. Two wrongs do not make a right and two discriminations - one unconscious and one conscious - does not make equality. Joshua Gomez suggested: [...] And I don't think that reverse discrimination is the true concern of most of those that have voiced opinions against a sub-community for women (at least I hope not). I don't think that suggesting everyone who disagrees with one's view is insincere or dishonest or something is a good idea. Personally, my concern isn't that it is reverse discrimination - it's that it is still discrimination. I don't feel that past sins excuse further ones. [...] And since I am not a member of the group that has been discriminated against I don't think I or anyone else not in that group should try to dissuade them from doing what is in their best interest. I am not a member of *that* group that has been discriminated against, but I am a member of one minority that is routinely discriminated against in a pretty direct way - code4lib's wiki suggests we are not human, as I mentioned in another mail on Friday: https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1212L=CODE4LIBD=0P=167926 - and I am not dissuading women from doing what is in their best interest, but I believe setting up another discriminatory group is not in anyone's best interests. The best thing would be to do similar as we do for accessibility and have mixed groups like fixtheweb.net working together to dismantle the barriers. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
There have been some contradictory statements made about #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no requirement that one be female to participate, indeed many of the people involved explicitly reject the notion of a binary gender model. Allies of any gender who wish to discuss how to make library technology spaces more inclusive, particularly for women and gender minorities, are welcome and encouraged to join us. The suggestion has been made that the name libtechwomen might not be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and welcome suggestions. Best wishes, Bess
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Are there folks out there who think that you can only be in one IRC room at a time? If I want to be in the #190cmtall room, nobody in #code4lib would know, nor would it be any of their business. Are there people here who really feel threatened by this? Cary On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: There have been some contradictory statements made about #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no requirement that one be female to participate, indeed many of the people involved explicitly reject the notion of a binary gender model. Allies of any gender who wish to discuss how to make library technology spaces more inclusive, particularly for women and gender minorities, are welcome and encouraged to join us. The suggestion has been made that the name libtechwomen might not be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and welcome suggestions. Best wishes, Bess -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
This is the framing that I resonate with as well. I really appreciate all the conversations as of late on code4lib and I find that the poll on gender and community was incredibly illuminating. I'm currently reading 'Unlocking the clubhouse' and there are large swaths of relevant passages that apply that have to with the setting of model behaviour in a field that might explain the high numbers who don't feel the community that others do (An aside: when you are tempted to tell someone else what to *feel* please re-consider). One aspect of community is the sense of shared experience. If you are a librarian, you don't have to explain the work that you do at in the same way you have to do when you among non-librarians. That's part of the joy of a community. In code4lib you can joke about text editors or what have you, knowing most folks will get and maybe even laugh at the joke. Again, I want to say that I appreciate the efforts of those who are taking the time to explain where women's experiences are not so shared with men. I've seen what I think is genuine reflection and re-thinking and that gladdens the heart. That being said, comments like this http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2012/201212/3988.htmhttp://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2012/201212/3988.htmll feel like trolling to me and the lack of response to such comments leaves me disappointed. Having to constantly explains one's self doesn't lend to a sense of community. All that being said, I would hate the code4lib community to lose momentum on the matter of the anti-harassment policy. Sadly, it is much needed. M On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Joshua Gomez jngo...@gwu.edu wrote: Others have mentioned they fear that a subgroup will only decrease the diversity within code4lib by pulling women away from it and into the new group. This was my initial concern as well, but when I look at other kinds of women in tech groups I realize that they don't decrease women's participation in mainstream groups. In fact they help boost women's profiles and skill sets, thus increasing their likelihood of participating in mainstream groups. Well said, Joshua. Any separate women in technology groups I've been involved with (e.g., devchix, grrlswithmodems back in the day) have been what you describe here. These groups are supplementary, and create a place to get support if one needs help navigating mainstream (and yes, male-dominated) communities. Bess
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
May I suggest some comments don't need a response because (1) they are intended facetiously and/or (2) they are trolling. In either case, it's best to take the high ground and let them pass into oblivion, especially in highly charged discussions. Carol On Dec 8, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Mita Williams wrote: This is the framing that I resonate with as well. I really appreciate all the conversations as of late on code4lib and I find that the poll on gender and community was incredibly illuminating. I'm currently reading 'Unlocking the clubhouse' and there are large swaths of relevant passages that apply that have to with the setting of model behaviour in a field that might explain the high numbers who don't feel the community that others do (An aside: when you are tempted to tell someone else what to *feel* please re-consider). One aspect of community is the sense of shared experience. If you are a librarian, you don't have to explain the work that you do at in the same way you have to do when you among non-librarians. That's part of the joy of a community. In code4lib you can joke about text editors or what have you, knowing most folks will get and maybe even laugh at the joke. Again, I want to say that I appreciate the efforts of those who are taking the time to explain where women's experiences are not so shared with men. I've seen what I think is genuine reflection and re-thinking and that gladdens the heart. That being said, comments like this http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2012/201212/3988.htmhttp://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/archive/2012/201212/3988.htmll feel like trolling to me and the lack of response to such comments leaves me disappointed. Having to constantly explains one's self doesn't lend to a sense of community. All that being said, I would hate the code4lib community to lose momentum on the matter of the anti-harassment policy. Sadly, it is much needed. M On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Bess Sadler bess.sad...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Joshua Gomez jngo...@gwu.edu wrote: Others have mentioned they fear that a subgroup will only decrease the diversity within code4lib by pulling women away from it and into the new group. This was my initial concern as well, but when I look at other kinds of women in tech groups I realize that they don't decrease women's participation in mainstream groups. In fact they help boost women's profiles and skill sets, thus increasing their likelihood of participating in mainstream groups. Well said, Joshua. Any separate women in technology groups I've been involved with (e.g., devchix, grrlswithmodems back in the day) have been what you describe here. These groups are supplementary, and create a place to get support if one needs help navigating mainstream (and yes, male-dominated) communities. Bess
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
I agree with Dan. I am all for folks doing what they are called to do. I simply hope that those efforts won't come at the expense of this group, because code4lib, imperfect as it may be, is a wonderful resource. Cary On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dan Chudnov daniel.chud...@gmail.com wrote: An opinion: I'm all for people creating new social structures to move themselves forward doing it however they see fit. The internet is a big place, and there's room for more. In this case, though, I hope it will be an and operation, not an exclusive or. I would be happy to hear that a new group formed and that it's going well. I would be disappointed if people in that group ended up moving away from this one big group. It happens, and I'd get over it, sure, but it'd still be disappointing. We gain something by gathering together like we have here. It's not exclusive, nor should it be. But code4lib has added so much to me and my work that I know how much I stand to lose if we do not also keep working to stick together, however difficult that can be sometimes. -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Joshua, I don't think there is anything I can really add to what you've, in my mind, summed up perfectly. Six years ago, after a regrettable incident of insensitivity that I was directly involved in [1], we had a similar period of reflection and discussion about the culture we wanted to foster here. Roy said something at the time that has stuck with me, the group that is the dominant majority cannot understand what it's like to be an underrepresented minority and therefore cannot dictate how they integrate into your group. Or something. I'm paraphrasing, it was 6 years ago or so, after all. Anyway, the point is, it's not up to you to determine how other people should feel about something if you want to include them in your community. So, while, like Joshua says, it stings that we apparently haven't come far enough that we don't need, as Bohyun called them, IGs, who are we to object if that's what makes the place more welcoming (which, really, should be the goal)? -Ross. 1. I won't go into detail, but it's a source of shame and guilt and something I've regretted since it happened. But it did happen and I own it. Ultimately, however, it had the positive effect of both changing me and, more importantly, was the catalyst for making Code4lib a far more inviting place, which gives me hope -- applied toward the tech community at large -- for the redemptive quality of humanity when it has the will to do so. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Joshua Gomez jngo...@gwu.edu wrote: The past week or so I've been struggling to understand the reason for the strong opinions against a women's support group as a subbranch of code4lib or as an external entity. One argument is the reverse discrimination argument. I'm not sure how many have actually been making this argument but it has definitely been made by some. I have little sympathy for this argument. Perhaps it makes logical sense when the situation is looked at in a very narrow perspective, but in the larger view which takes account of social context and history, it loses validity. And I don't think that reverse discrimination is the true concern of most of those that have voiced opinions against a sub-community for women (at least I hope not). Others have mentioned they fear that a subgroup will only decrease the diversity within code4lib by pulling women away from it and into the new group. This was my initial concern as well, but when I look at other kinds of women in tech groups I realize that they don't decrease women's participation in mainstream groups. In fact they help boost women's profiles and skill sets, thus increasing their likelihood of participating in mainstream groups. I may be way off base here, but I think there is also something else going on besides those first two concerns. I think there is also a collective fear of shame and failure. I think many of the white males in this community truly are sensitive to issues of equality and they want to show their support by making code4lib a place known for supporting diversity and equality. When a group which feels treated as less than equals creates a support group for themselves that creates public shame for the original group for failing to achieve its goals of equality. What's more, the idea of a splinter group came so soon on the heels of the original thread about the anti-harassment policy. The policy suggestion received a very large and very immediate showing of support from the community. So splintering now just as the community is showing what it can do to support diversity and equality is particularly frustrating. I can sympathize with those feelings. But perhaps the support shown last week was simply too little too late. Especially considering that there are those still pressing the first argument mentioned and making the situation uncomfortable. And since I am not a member of the group that has been discriminated against I don't think I or anyone else not in that group should try to dissuade them from doing what is in their best interest. Joshua Gomez Digital Library Programmer Analyst George Washington University Libraries 2130 H St, NW Washington, DC 20052 (202) 994-8267 On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: I'm all for people creating new social structures to move themselves forward doing it however they see fit. The internet is a big place, and there's room for more. In this case, though, I hope it will be an and operation, not an exclusive or. I would be happy to hear that a new group formed and that it's going well. I would be disappointed if people in that group ended up moving away from this one big group. It happens, and I'd get over it, sure, but it'd still be disappointing. We gain something by gathering together like we have here. It's not exclusive, nor should it be. But code4lib has added so much to me and my work that I know how much I stand to lose if we do not also
[CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...). I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having a learning group instead? Personally, I don't see why we can have both code4libwomen and code4liblearn inside code4lib if there are enough people who think that these would make code4lib more useful to them and if this makes code4lib serve more diverse interests of their members. So I am looking forward to hearing form other women in c4l on this! :) Cheers, ~Bohyun
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Bohyun -- Thanks for taking a risk and posting your question. open_discussion++ I don't have a good answer for you. I think there is common agreement that ways are needed to bring new people into the Code4Lib community. I don't have a good sense as to whether generalized community-orientation-guidance will help anyone/everyone feel welcome or whether targeted mentoring will help Code4Lib find a diversity and balance of viewpoints. The only thing I know to try to do is start with the general and see where that gets us. Peter On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Bohyun Kim k...@fiu.edu wrote: Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...). I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having a learning group instead? Personally, I don't see why we can have both code4libwomen and code4liblearn inside code4lib if there are enough people who think that these would make code4lib more useful to them and if this makes code4lib serve more diverse interests of their members. So I am looking forward to hearing form other women in c4l on this! :) Cheers, ~Bohyun -- Peter Murray Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS peter.mur...@lyrasis.org +1 678-235-2955 1438 West Peachtree Street NW Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Toll Free: 800.999.8558 Fax: 404.892.7879 www.lyrasis.org LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Hi Bohyun, Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group. I found the terminology separate but equal (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l. If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone. If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us. Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...). I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having a learning group instead? Personally, I don't see why we can have both code4libwomen and code4liblearn inside code4lib if there are enough people who think that these would make code4lib more useful to them and if this makes code4lib serve more diverse interests of their members. So I am looking forward to hearing form other women in c4l on this! :) Cheers, ~Bohyun
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask permission. So, do it. I think the only open question is: where? e.g. what platform? kc On 12/7/12 9:25 AM, Salazar, Christina wrote: Hi Bohyun, Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group. I found the terminology separate but equal (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l. If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone. If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us. Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...). I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having a learning group instead? Personally, I don't see why we can have both code4libwomen and code4liblearn inside code4lib if there are enough people who think that these would make code4lib more useful to them and if this makes code4lib serve more diverse interests of their members. So I am looking forward to hearing form other women in c4l on this! :) Cheers, ~Bohyun -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
kcoyle++ Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. Joe Montibello, MLIS Library Systems Manager Dartmouth College Library 603.646.9394 joseph.montibe...@dartmouth.edu On 12/7/12 12:50 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask permission. So, do it. I think the only open question is: where? e.g. what platform? kc On 12/7/12 9:25 AM, Salazar, Christina wrote: Hi Bohyun, Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group. I found the terminology separate but equal (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l. If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone. If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us. Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...). I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having a learning group instead? Personally, I don't see why we can have both code4libwomen and code4liblearn inside code4lib if there are enough people who think that these would make code4lib more useful to them and if this makes code4lib serve more diverse interests of their members. So I am looking forward to hearing form other women in c4l on this! :) Cheers, ~Bohyun -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
There being no rules about who can form a group does not mean there are no opinions about it, or that nobody should share an opinion. Just the opposite, the community defines itself by sharing opinions and discussing them, not by rules. There is no contradiction between thinking something is a bad idea and thinking it is not prohibited by any rules, I am surprised to find you astonished by it. Yes, you don't need permission, you can just do it. But people will have opinions about what you do, and they'll share them. That's how a community functions, no? People are encouraged to float their ideas by the community and get community feedback and take that feedback into account -- but taking it into account doesn't mean you have to refrain from doing something if some people don't like it (especially when other people do), you can make your own decision. I'm not even going to talk about the particular plan here, because I think this general point is much more important. The idea that rules are the only thing that can or should guide's one course of action is absolutely antithetical to a well-functioning community, online or offline. Thinking that either there should be a rule against something, or else nobody should resist or express opposition to anything that lacks a rule against it -- is a recipe for stultifying beuarocracy, not community. From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:50 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask permission. So, do it. I think the only open question is: where? e.g. what platform? kc On 12/7/12 9:25 AM, Salazar, Christina wrote: Hi Bohyun, Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group. I found the terminology separate but equal (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l. If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone. If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us. Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like an IG inside LITA or something like that...). I just wanted to know if there are still women in code4lib who are interested in this idea because gender-specific issues won't be addressed by a code4lib learning group. (If this is the case, I am still interested in participating, and I already set up #code4libwomen IRC channel.) Or, do we think that the initial needs that led to the talk of code4libwomen will be sufficiently met by having
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net [...] If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. [...] Well, will code4lib tolerate that discrimination? Is the discriminatory language used in the start of this thread appropriate for code4lib? The thread opener does not describe an equality campaign. It described a group for just women and seemed to claim gender-specific issues won't be addressed by any group other than women-only. It feels like code4lib may be giving up and that the anti-harrassment policy is junk before it's given a reasonable go. Of course, setting up discriminatory spaces isn't harassment directly, so is on the fringe of the anti-harrassment policy. Is there a code4lib equality policy? Could we agree that everyone should able to use all of code4lib without distinction[...] such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status? (Quote from UDHR)
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Apparently I used offensive language in a post recently, despite intentions otherwise. So: I am sorry that I used offensive language. I will strive to choose my words more carefully next time. All of the following is my opinion -- one opinion among thousands (there are over 2,200 people on this list). I have been dismayed at discovering that there are people on this mailing list who don't feel themselves to be members of this group. I am of the opinion that there is only requirement to be a member of this group -- you show up. That is, if you *wish* to be a member of this group, in whatever form that takes (e.g., on the mailing list, a regional conference participant, etc.) you *are*. Also, what I was attempting to say (clumsily, apparently) is that I believe that diversity is a great strength. Therefore, as a member of this community (see above), I wish for a more diverse community. I want more $underRepresentedClass to participate in Code4Lib, not fewer. Roy
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
I agree. Everyone gets to have their opinions. So, in terms of a place to set up a discussion about (or of, I don't remember the wording) women in code4lib or even just women and code, the places I'm aware of that might work are: Google+ Google Groups an email list (not my favorite) IRC However, I'm probably the least knowledgeable of most people here about social software since I mostly don't participate. So I'm asking for suggestions. kc On 12/7/12 10:03 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: There being no rules about who can form a group does not mean there are no opinions about it, or that nobody should share an opinion. Just the opposite, the community defines itself by sharing opinions and discussing them, not by rules. There is no contradiction between thinking something is a bad idea and thinking it is not prohibited by any rules, I am surprised to find you astonished by it. Yes, you don't need permission, you can just do it. But people will have opinions about what you do, and they'll share them. That's how a community functions, no? People are encouraged to float their ideas by the community and get community feedback and take that feedback into account -- but taking it into account doesn't mean you have to refrain from doing something if some people don't like it (especially when other people do), you can make your own decision. I'm not even going to talk about the particular plan here, because I think this general point is much more important. The idea that rules are the only thing that can or should guide's one course of action is absolutely antithetical to a well-functioning community, online or offline. Thinking that either there should be a rule against something, or else nobody should resist or express opposition to anything that lacks a rule against it -- is a recipe for stultifying beuarocracy, not community. From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:50 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask permission. So, do it. I think the only open question is: where? e.g. what platform? kc On 12/7/12 9:25 AM, Salazar, Christina wrote: Hi Bohyun, Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group. I found the terminology separate but equal (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l. If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone. If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us. Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests in a space for women, NOT as a separate group from code4lib BUT more as just a small support and discussion group for just women, INSIDE the c4l community not OUTSIDE of it. (Like
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask permission. So, do it. A point of information: Ten years ago a few of us who were already on web4lib and perl4lib and xml4lib mailing lists were talking about python more so we discussed whether we should start a python4lib list. It seemed silly because a lot of us were already on all the other separate lists, and somebody suggested just naming a new thing code4lib because maybe more people would want to join it and might stop worrying about choosing between other lists and defining more oddly overlapping subsets and focus instead on talking about code more openly and expansively. This seems to have had the desired effect, modulo some areas we can improve upon. A point of history: Over the years several regional code4lib groups formed and some wanted to have their own lists. When such suggestions have been made on this list, those suggestions have often been resisted, because of the success we had originally collapsing (combining?) people who wanted to talk about code and libraries into one big list. Maybe some resistance to seeing a code4lib4women activity broken out is similar to that. I feel that resistance; maybe I'm not the only one. Didn't Ecclesiastes say something about a time to form mailing lists, a time to gather mailing list subscribers together? An opinion: I'm all for people creating new social structures to move themselves forward doing it however they see fit. The internet is a big place, and there's room for more. In this case, though, I hope it will be an and operation, not an exclusive or. I would be happy to hear that a new group formed and that it's going well. I would be disappointed if people in that group ended up moving away from this one big group. It happens, and I'd get over it, sure, but it'd still be disappointing. We gain something by gathering together like we have here. It's not exclusive, nor should it be. But code4lib has added so much to me and my work that I know how much I stand to lose if we do not also keep working to stick together, however difficult that can be sometimes. Respectfully yours, -Dan
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Dan Chudnov daniel.chud...@gmail.com wrote: A point of history: Over the years several regional code4lib groups formed and some wanted to have their own lists. When such suggestions have been made on this list, those suggestions have often been resisted, because of the success we had originally collapsing (combining?) people who wanted to talk about code and libraries into one big list. Maybe some resistance to seeing a code4lib4women activity broken out is similar to that. I feel that resistance; maybe I'm not the only one. I was going to say this too. I'm pretty sure over the years there has been resistance to breaking out (for the regionals as well as for particular languages and technologies). I think it's a cycle... things come together, then they pull apart... it's ongoing. I don't think this particular idea has met any more resistance than any of the others in the past. I also don't feel strongly that we need to have a strong central point. Let ten thousand Code4Lib flowers bloom... Kevin
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On Dec 7, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Dan Chudnov daniel.chud...@gmail.com wrote: Over the years several regional code4lib groups formed and some wanted to have their own lists. When such suggestions have been made on this list, those suggestions have often been resisted, because of the success we had originally collapsing (combining?) people who wanted to talk about code and libraries into one big list. Maybe some resistance to seeing a code4lib4women activity broken out is similar to that. I feel that resistance; maybe I'm not the only one… I'm all for people creating new social structures to move themselves forward doing it however they see fit. The internet is a big place, and there's room for more. In this case, though, I hope it will be an and operation, not an exclusive or. I would be happy to hear that a new group formed and that it's going well. I would be disappointed if people in that group ended up moving away from this one big group. It happens, and I'd get over it, sure, but it'd still be disappointing. We gain something by gathering together like we have here. It's not exclusive, nor should it be. But code4lib has added so much to me and my work that I know how much I stand to lose if we do not also keep working to stick together, however difficult that can be sometimes. Dan said it much better than I ever could, and I agree with him. I don't really think there is a need for an additional social structures, but no one is stopping anybody else from creating one. I really like the idea of and not or. Personally, I believe we need fewer lists, not more. -- Eric Lease Morgan University of Notre Dame
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
I'm all for people creating new social structures to move themselves forward doing it however they see fit. The internet is a big place, and there's room for more. In this case, though, I hope it will be an and operation, not an exclusive or. I would be happy to hear that a new group formed and that it's going well. I would be disappointed if people in that group ended up moving away from this one big group. It happens, and I'd get over it, sure, but it'd still be disappointing. We gain something by gathering together like we have here. It's not exclusive, nor should it be. But code4lib has added so much to me and my work that I know how much I stand to lose if we do not also keep working to stick together, however difficult that can be sometimes. Respectfully yours, -Dan The way to make that happen is to make the larger group welcoming, fair, non-hostile. I've seen some real hostility around this idea of creating a place for women -- not just people thinking it might not be as good as being a single group, but real hostility. I suspect there was less hostility about setting up a Python group, or about setting up local groups. Removing the difficulty is the best way to keep everyone together. I definitely do not feel, today, like I'm welcomed, mainly because of the strength of the arguments against an idea that came from women. And remember, there wasn't a felt need to create an anti-harassment policy against Pythoners. These are not analogous situations. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
The past week or so I've been struggling to understand the reason for the strong opinions against a women's support group as a subbranch of code4lib or as an external entity. One argument is the reverse discrimination argument. I'm not sure how many have actually been making this argument but it has definitely been made by some. I have little sympathy for this argument. Perhaps it makes logical sense when the situation is looked at in a very narrow perspective, but in the larger view which takes account of social context and history, it loses validity. And I don't think that reverse discrimination is the true concern of most of those that have voiced opinions against a sub-community for women (at least I hope not). Others have mentioned they fear that a subgroup will only decrease the diversity within code4lib by pulling women away from it and into the new group. This was my initial concern as well, but when I look at other kinds of women in tech groups I realize that they don't decrease women's participation in mainstream groups. In fact they help boost women's profiles and skill sets, thus increasing their likelihood of participating in mainstream groups. I may be way off base here, but I think there is also something else going on besides those first two concerns. I think there is also a collective fear of shame and failure. I think many of the white males in this community truly are sensitive to issues of equality and they want to show their support by making code4lib a place known for supporting diversity and equality. When a group which feels treated as less than equals creates a support group for themselves that creates public shame for the original group for failing to achieve its goals of equality. What's more, the idea of a splinter group came so soon on the heels of the original thread about the anti-harassment policy. The policy suggestion received a very large and very immediate showing of support from the community. So splintering now just as the community is showing what it can do to support diversity and equality is particularly frustrating. I can sympathize with those feelings. But perhaps the support shown last week was simply too little too late. Especially considering that there are those still pressing the first argument mentioned and making the situation uncomfortable. And since I am not a member of the group that has been discriminated against I don't think I or anyone else not in that group should try to dissuade them from doing what is in their best interest. Joshua Gomez Digital Library Programmer Analyst George Washington University Libraries 2130 H St, NW Washington, DC 20052 (202) 994-8267 On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: I'm all for people creating new social structures to move themselves forward doing it however they see fit. The internet is a big place, and there's room for more. In this case, though, I hope it will be an and operation, not an exclusive or. I would be happy to hear that a new group formed and that it's going well. I would be disappointed if people in that group ended up moving away from this one big group. It happens, and I'd get over it, sure, but it'd still be disappointing. We gain something by gathering together like we have here. It's not exclusive, nor should it be. But code4lib has added so much to me and my work that I know how much I stand to lose if we do not also keep working to stick together, however difficult that can be sometimes. Respectfully yours, -Dan The way to make that happen is to make the larger group welcoming, fair, non-hostile. I've seen some real hostility around this idea of creating a place for women -- not just people thinking it might not be as good as being a single group, but real hostility. I suspect there was less hostility about setting up a Python group, or about setting up local groups. Removing the difficulty is the best way to keep everyone together. I definitely do not feel, today, like I'm welcomed, mainly because of the strength of the arguments against an idea that came from women. And remember, there wasn't a felt need to create an anti-harassment policy against Pythoners. These are not analogous situations. kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
Just to say that the IRC channel has taken off nicely, so my questions here about venues are deferred for now. kc On 12/7/12 12:12 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: I agree. Everyone gets to have their opinions. So, in terms of a place to set up a discussion about (or of, I don't remember the wording) women in code4lib or even just women and code, the places I'm aware of that might work are: Google+ Google Groups an email list (not my favorite) IRC However, I'm probably the least knowledgeable of most people here about social software since I mostly don't participate. So I'm asking for suggestions. kc On 12/7/12 10:03 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: There being no rules about who can form a group does not mean there are no opinions about it, or that nobody should share an opinion. Just the opposite, the community defines itself by sharing opinions and discussing them, not by rules. There is no contradiction between thinking something is a bad idea and thinking it is not prohibited by any rules, I am surprised to find you astonished by it. Yes, you don't need permission, you can just do it. But people will have opinions about what you do, and they'll share them. That's how a community functions, no? People are encouraged to float their ideas by the community and get community feedback and take that feedback into account -- but taking it into account doesn't mean you have to refrain from doing something if some people don't like it (especially when other people do), you can make your own decision. I'm not even going to talk about the particular plan here, because I think this general point is much more important. The idea that rules are the only thing that can or should guide's one course of action is absolutely antithetical to a well-functioning community, online or offline. Thinking that either there should be a rule against something, or else nobody should resist or express opposition to anything that lacks a rule against it -- is a recipe for stultifying beuarocracy, not community. From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:50 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Code4lib appears to have no rules about who can and cannot form a group. Therefore, if there are some folks who want a group, they should create that group. If it's successful, it's successful. If not, it'll fade away like so many start-up groups. I'm astonished at the resistance to the formation of a group on the part of people who also insist that there are no rules about forming groups. I don't recall that any other proposal to set up a group has met this kind of resistance. In fact, we were recently reminded that if you want something done in c4l you should just do it. There is no need to ask permission. So, do it. I think the only open question is: where? e.g. what platform? kc On 12/7/12 9:25 AM, Salazar, Christina wrote: Hi Bohyun, Thank you so much for raising this again. I'm still interested in such a group. I found the terminology separate but equal (that some on this list chose to use as a reason not to do this) offensive; it was not at all the spirit that I'd originally proposed and no one had suggested either separate OR equal other than detractors. In fact I said that anyone would be welcome. I completely agree with what you're saying about there not being any reason why we women couldn't do both (I think we're versatile that way). I'm pretty sure I vaguely recall (maybe) there being some (similar) concerns about the local c4ls and I would say it's very similar - no one says that just because a person finds say, Appalachia.c4l useful, it detracts from the global c4l. If I can find other women who are willing to work together as a women in library technology/coder/whatever support group, I will work to make something like this happen. As someone pointed out, we don't need blessing from anyone. If you will be there, I will look for you at the conference and we can discuss further. If there are other women who are interested, go us. Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 p.s. Usual disclaimer about these opinions being my own and not reflecting those of my workplace/employers. -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bohyun Kim Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:14 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea Hi all, I might upset some people with this, but I wanted to bring up this question. First, let me say that I think it is a terrific idea to have a code4lib learning group with or without a mentoring program. But from what I read from the listserv, it seemed to me that there were interests
Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Joshua Gomez jngo...@gwu.edu wrote: Others have mentioned they fear that a subgroup will only decrease the diversity within code4lib by pulling women away from it and into the new group. This was my initial concern as well, but when I look at other kinds of women in tech groups I realize that they don't decrease women's participation in mainstream groups. In fact they help boost women's profiles and skill sets, thus increasing their likelihood of participating in mainstream groups. Well said, Joshua. Any separate women in technology groups I've been involved with (e.g., devchix, grrlswithmodems back in the day) have been what you describe here. These groups are supplementary, and create a place to get support if one needs help navigating mainstream (and yes, male-dominated) communities. Bess
