I am a Linux user and I belong to a couple of Linux user groups that are nearly all men. A couple of the guy’s girlfriends come to the meetings because they would never see them otherwise. These groups were interesting but I was intimidated. I learned what RTFM (read the fucking manual) means and there were a lot of “That’s a stupid question” responses to beginner questions. I discovered Linuxchix.org through geek girls tribe and I discovered a whole new Linux culture. RTFM is verboten and considered rude. They have a motto that no question is a stupid question. There seems to be a culture of helping the newest person to learn so that they may in turn help the next generation.
My question is this do you think that one of the major problems is that men and women have different rights of passages into the field?
For instance in my situation it seems the men have a sink or swim mentality. If you swim you can be one of the guys who get to tell the newest user to RTFM. With my particular women’s group it is the opposite you are a good Linux guru if you help the newest user to become an advanced user.
My next question is how can we bridge that gap?
posted by:
Me
offline Me
Sacramento
  • Re: different rights of passages into the field

    Mon, December 8, 2003 - 3:13 PM
    Very interesting! I see the exact same mentality in my field (chemistry), particularly at the faculty level. I don't think it's an easy question and perhaps we need to step back further and ask why men and women have such different approaches. This could then lead to answering how to bridge the gap. There's a really interesting book out there called "Why so Slow" by Virginia Valian. It's asking why has the advancement of women in science been so slow despite increased enrollment in higher education. She introduces a concept called gender schemas.. that we (men and women) have these gender biases that subconsciously affect our decisions which in turn can affect expectations and attitudes. I won't review the whole book but worth a look.
    • Re: different rights of passages into the field

      Tue, December 30, 2003 - 1:40 PM
      I don't know if it's the same book, but I skimmed through a book a few months ago that discussed gender differences in learning and social attitudes. It analyzed the different approaches that children have to learning in the classroom, and how it probably leads to many of the disparities between males and females later in life. Boys tend to naturally have a more competitive demeanor than women, and thrive in group situations where they have to prove their worth to become the top of the social hierarchy. Girls, on the other hand, work better in small groups where ideas are shared and relationships are fostered. Given the opportunity to discuss in small groups without having to compete, girls tend to open up more, and those that are normally reserved in classroom situations actually begin to interact more frequently.

      I have to find the name of the book...
      • Re: different rights of passages into the field

        Wed, December 31, 2003 - 10:10 PM
        There are quite a few good books out there on this subject. And for a long time I found myself just accepting the basic idea that there were biological differences that dictate why women and men act the way we do. And then I read "Women in Human Evolution" edited by Lori D Hager tinyurl.com/2n3vl
        This really shook some of my common assumptions. I need to read it again infact to remember exactly why it shook my world, but I know its a good read. ;)
    • Re: different rights of passages into the field

      Fri, October 15, 2004 - 9:30 AM
      Another book that is related is called "Women in Mathematics, The addition of Difference (Race, Gender and Science) by Claudia Henrion.
      She points out many of the cultural myths in Mathematics in particular make it difficult for women to be supported in a mathematical career -- Like all great mathematicians do their groundbreaking work while young....
  • Re: different rights of passages into the field

    Mon, October 11, 2004 - 4:24 PM
    Hi. I just joined this tribe, hope it's cool to revive an almost year-old subject.

    There are many issues to consider here - for one thing, remember that the programming/cs fields are not representative of all technological fields, and in many cases provide 'exceptions to the rules'. The culture, history and work environments vary a great deal. For example, dealing with a group of 25-or-so year old male Linux programmers is entirely different than dealing with a group of 60 year old male engine mechanics. Computer science is relatively new and primarily white collar, plus most people in the cs fields consider 2 years at a job to be "long term". I'm a mechanical engineer - most people I work with have been at their jobs for 15 or more years, and the average age is probably about 50 years old. In some ways there are old sexist stereotypes in play, but really there are other more pressing issues. Such as, stress and animosity between engineers and maintenance or 'blue collar' tech staff at my company. If people are going to be biased against me, it's more likely because I'm an engineer than because I'm a woman. My "rite of passage" here (hey "right of passage" is an amusing error - or was it intentional?) was surviving a verbal beat-down by an old curmudgeon who I now have an excellent working relationship with. Everyone went through the same crap with him, not just the women here.

    Anyway another thing to consider, especially with cs or programming groups, is that most of these people never had experience or education with socialization. Zero social skills is not just a funny stereotype! It really manifests, especially when a community is so young and inexperienced in the "real world", and when "real world" experience is so brief, moving from place to place, mostly surrounded by one's peer group. Sure there are plenty of sexists around, but a lot of times what may appear to be sexism is really just a complete lack of social skills. (Not that that's excusable, it just shifts the focus from "us v. them" to "what a bunch of idiots".)

    My personal preference is to avoid focusing on "are things different for men and women"? The world is changing too quickly to say "this is how things are, period." And generalizations tend to contribute to the divide. Instead, tell me about *specific experiences* that you need to work through. Like, you had a problem with one Linux group, then you found a good Linux group. No need to generalize that all male Linux programmers share the attitude of the men from that one (or few) group(s). Also, you ask if there are different "rights of passage" for men and women. Well let me ask you this - do you think there should be? Do you want to be treated as a female programmer, or do you want to be treated like a programmer?

    For me personally, my gender has never interfered with my career as far as I know. If it has, I'm oblivious to it, and I don't care cause I'm where I want to be. I just act as if there is nothing wrong. Perhaps willfull ignorance, but it works for me. I never want to be treated like a female engineer, because my gender is completely irrelevent. I am an engineer, period. I have my particular style, maybe influenced by my gender, but also influenced by other things like where I'm from, where I went to school, what my interests are. Treat me like an engineer, not like an engineer with tits. Isn't that the whole point?

    Plus, I don't think the sink or swim mentality is based on gender, I think it's based on career, field, particular employer or community. I've met plenty of men who've helped me go from "new" to "advanced" - if only women helped women, there would be *no women in the technical fields*.

    Hope this wasn't too all-over-the-place or harsh or anything like that. Very interesting topics, I hope more people talk about their experiences...
  • Re: different rights of passages into the field

    Mon, October 10, 2005 - 12:54 AM
    From the Technology standpoint of S&T, I've been in the technical side of public safety land-mobile communications for 29 years at this point ...

    My observations on "right of passage" are the following:

    When breaking into this non-traditional field in 1976 as a communications technician what I ran up against was the implied requirement to "prove my abilities" to the guys in the shop.

    I'm sure this is a common experience that others on this tribe have run into, however even after several years, and promoting to network-level maintenance responsibilities in the early 1980's, that there was still an implied requirement to prove my abilities to those that did not know me....

    I started out as an entry-level communications technician with a /\/\otorola Service Station (MSS) and was the first woman communications tech (that I'm aware of) in the Silicon Valley area at that time ...

    I received 3 raises in my first 6 months, and once the guys realized that I could actually trouble-shoot and repair equipment, and that I wasn't simply a "token minority hire" , I generated some level of respect from them....

    Since then, I've been with two public safety agencies, and now manage the two-way radio communications program with a large municipality ... I've been in management for about 7 years, and also have a maintenance and semi-engineering facility with a staff of eight ...

    On the men vs women approach, I really think that men spend an inordinate amount of time trying to "win" (whatever that means), as oppposed to people cooperating and working as an efficient team ... I think that for a lot of guys, they get hung up on the idea of asking for assistance and usually won't. The result is longer down-time for comms networks sometimes...

    Elaine ..

    • Re: different rights of passages into the field

      Mon, October 10, 2005 - 7:59 AM
      Okay, I'll add my two.

      I haven't been directly in a science field that has enough women in it that I can speak with any authority with regard to the differences. I can only discuss my observations with regard to a predominantly male environment, and one where a random woman or two have broken in to the field.

      The first was as a firefighter. What I found was that the men were in a constant state of one-upping or cutting down one another and this transferred to the women, until there was a fire or other emergency wherein all ego was set aside [with a few exceptions] for the sake of working efficiently to remedy the situation.

      It was the down time that I saw as the 'swagger culture'. I think that what was interesting to me is that some of the women spent a lot of energy trying to set themselves above the other women by focusing on them and trying to highlight the mistakes of other women. This is what I see as the 'one of the guys' syndrome.

      I remember an engineer who, as I saw it, was hired by the old-school patriphiles in my department to illustrate the reason that women should not be in the department. To qualify, I say this as she had less experience than myself [no more than 4 months at the time] and I knew that I was not qualified to be an engineer yet. I never spoke negatively of her or any other woman in our department. Back to the point, in her insecurity, this woman made every effort at every moment possible to complain and insult other women in an attempt to be 'one of the guys' and I think in the end it merely alienated her from everyone. She was an extreme example, but it was disheartening to not see the 'sisterhood' in the fire department. To be sure there are other departments where the culture is different

      Deborah Tannen discusses the differences between men and women in the workplace, that men often are jockeying for heirarchy and women often attempt to make 'inroads' in communication. I think though that it can be dangerous to say 'men do x' and 'women do y' as a common practice. I would imagine that many of the members of this tribe can separate the hard from soft science in this regard, but somehow the softer stuff is culturally hardened or rhetorically hardened by repeating it and coming to some sort of group-think agreement of a 'truth'. Again, not to say that those here would do so, rather those who have not been trained and honed their Baloney Detectors as well as we.

      Honestly, I think that the gender-dimorphism we experience is enculturated and I would love to see some of that enculturation re-written to allow for a greater variability in communication and personality between men and women. There are certainly parts of us that are truly unique as women, but I think that it is a much more inspissated aspect of our personna. Yeah, I do like the inclusive element women can posess, and I appreciate the positive reinforcement and can-do-together that can comes up. I think though that men have every opportunity to act similarly but are taught otherwise at an early age. But I am likely preaching to the choir.

      So yeah, that's my twelve cents.
      • Re: different rights of passages into the field

        Mon, October 10, 2005 - 8:14 PM
        Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, BUT my 2 cents:

        I graduated 2.5 years ago with a major in math, and a minor in CS. In my upper division classes (like the ones that engineers don't take, but only the math majors) there were always more women then men!
        In my CS classes, there was maybe a 1:4 women to men ratio? I took an EE class, and it was about 1:10 women to men.

        I wasn't really exposed to programming until my last semesters, and was told it was horrible, until I took it. But, afterwards, I thought it was really cool, and regretted not doing it for my major. I kinda think it's an exposure thing nowadays. And that's why so many women do math...