I fully agree with your assessment. Have in the past organised meetings for him and never seen any bs. Having led the discussions, RMS was always cooperative and at no point disrupted procedure. This was 2017-2018 when I was in Barcelona coordinating all this - leading to the CaixaForum conversation on digital cities with Barcelona City Council Chief of Technology Francesca Bria. And other interactions, e.g. with Behavioral Expert Dr Diane Hamilton. If anyone thinks the two women needed white-knighting, people who think this way, should go and get their head tested. Although the 14th century is long past, many educated people today are either uneducated, or education has educated them out of it.
--------------------- Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:28 AM > From: "Eric S. Raymond" <e...@thyrsus.com> > To: "David Malcolm" <dmalc...@redhat.com> > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" <nat...@acm.org>, "Joseph Myers" > <jos...@codesourcery.com> > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>: > > > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from > > > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled". > > > > Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately > > trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior. > > My intent was not caricature. I was being dismissive and snarky > because I genuinely consider the personality complaints against RMS to > be pretty trivial. Not the managerial ones Joseph Myers listed; those > are serious. But they're not the cause of the current ruckus. > > To make the "triviality" point in the most forceful possible way, I > will take the bull by the horns and directly address RMS's behavior towards > women. And I will reveal a few things that I haven't talked about in > public for 40 years. > > I've known RMS since 1979; I'm fully aware of how obnoxious he can be > towards both men and women. There have been occasions on which I have > thought the state of the universe would have been improved if he'd > gotten a swift slap in the face. > > In fact, the first or second time I met him face to face it was > because he was rather determinedly pursuing my then-girlfriend. > A hostile witness might have said he was creeping on her, though > that slang for it wouldn't be invented until much later. > > I think an explanation of how how I reasoned about that situation has > some value in light of the current attempt to ostracize RMS. > > I paid very careful attention to whether my girlfriend appeared to > need any help dealing with him. I regarded her as an adult fully > capable of making her own decisions. One of those decisions could > have been to slap his face. If a more severe sanction had been > required, and she had yelled for help, I would cheerfully have > punched his lights out. > > No fisticuffs were required. She gently discouraged him, and we both > established friendly relations with him. In later years RMS and I > remained fairly close long after I broke up with that girlfriend. He > made passes at at least two of my later girlfriends that I know of, > including the woman I am still married to. In all cases, I trusted > these ladies to handle the situation like adults, and they did. It > really would not have occurred to me to do otherwise. > > I hear a lot of talk about RMS's behavior towards women being some sort > of vast horrible transgression that will drive all women everywhere to > flee from ever being contributors to FSF projects. To me this seems > just silly, and very infantilizing of women in general. My > girlfriends were emtirely able to > > (1) short-stop his advances when they became unwelcome > > (2) understand that some men have poor social skills and > trouble recognizing boundaries, > > (3) and *stay on friendly terms with him anyway*. > > I mean I saw this not just more than once, but every single time it > came up. > > I don't assume that any adult female is incapable of these things; I > respect women as fully capable of asserting and defending their > interests, I *expect* women to do that, and I thus consider a lot of the > white-knighting on their behalf to be at best empty virtue signaling > and at worst a cover for much more discreditable motives. > > Of course, he offends men too. When I deal with RMS, I know that I'm > going to have to cope with a certain amount of unpleasantness because > he has autism-like deficits amplified by some unfortunate personal > history. Yes. So what? He's one of my oldest friends anyway. He > has many admirable qualities; I respect and value him even when I have > to argue with him. And I can work with him when I need to. > > Why in the *hell* should I assume anyone with female genitalia is > incapable of doing the same? More to the point, why is anybody else > making such a silly, reductive assumption and then turning it into a > galloping moral panic that somehow justifies stoning RMS and driving > him out of the village? > > *grumble* Get *over* yourselves. You want to be "welcoming" to > women? Don't patronize or infantilize them - respect their ability to > tell off RMS for themselves *and then keep working with him*! > -- > <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> > > >
