Reply to SVAKSHA's comment
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/cIghG0GJ114%5B101-125%5D)
in original thread:
> I think Sisyphuss might actually have meant "genderization", not
> > "sexualization"
> > (I'm not sure if English is Sisyphuss' first language, which might
> explain
> > it).
> >
> > There is a big difference, and in many languages, it is not even
> possible to
> > avoid assigning a gender to a word.
> > Lua, for example, is a feminine noun (A Lua, the moon).
> > You can't even talk about a language in those languages without using
> either
> > masculine or feminine pronouns.
> > ("El idioma" or "La lengua" or "El lenguaje", for example).
> > Even in English, certain types of things are generally referred to with
> one
> > gender or the other - for example, people generally use the feminine
> pronoun
> > for boats, ships, and sometimes cars.
> >
> > Also, just calling something beautiful is not necessarily "sexualizing"
> it.
> > I could say that I find Scheme's sparse syntax is beautiful, for example
> > (and I have said just that in the past!).
> > In English, beautiful is commonly used for things, not just women, so
> > doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of sexualization.
>
I may not be personally offended or pushed out of Foss entirely
> because I have experienced harassment, been sexually objectified or
> stalked in Foss communities - I have, but a lot of women prefer to
> leave, quietly. They prefer spending their time in better environments
> that respected them, their time and efforts and I agree with that
> observation - any Foss volunteers time and effort, irrespective of the
> gender they belong to, deserves respect, so I'll echo Katie that
> telling women to not get offended, not be thin-skinned is not the way
> forward.
>
I was not trying to say that sexualization or objectification is at all
acceptable anywhere
in the FOSS and Julia communities, just that grammatical *genderization* is
impossible
to avoid in many languages.
> > Julia community is international, where English is not the
> > first language of many speakers, I think maybe the Julia Community
> Standard
> > should be updated.
> The English language is not my native language either but that is not
> an excuse to be unprofessional - sadly, a very very common theme in
> Foss communities. This language would not be acceptable in a work
> environment or official documentation, so why should Foss communities
> put up with unprofessional behavior? This would not drive me out of
> Foss but its annoying and cringe-inducing to hear unprofessional
> attitudes are acceptable because this is a FOSS community where
> anything goes. Not!
>
Never said that it was an excuse to be unprofessional. I just said that it
was
*understandable*, and that the JCS could be clearer that in English, one
should use
the neuter pronouns to refer to the julia language, and also that people
should be
gently shown what is acceptable.
>>the programming language is not a person and does not have a gender.
> > I think this should not be Anglo-centric, and would instead be clearer
> as
> > follows:
> > "the programming language is not a person and should not be
> > anthropomorphized".
> Fwiw, non-native English speakers would not be using the term
> "anthropomorphized" on a regular basis (I had to search for it), but
> they would definitely understand what "sexualizing" means. While
> writing standards[2] or documenting terms[3] it helps to use
> terminology that is commonly used and easily understandable. Watering
> down the terms will only create scope for more arguments that the
> reader misunderstood the writer, exactly like some of the responses in
> this thread that call out Stefan for enforcing the CoC.
>
OK, I've changed the wording of the change I am proposing to the JCS,
to not use the term "anthropomorphized". Please let me know what you think
of
my new proposed wording.
Also, I wasn't calling out Stefan for enforcing the CoC. It does need to
be done.
> Also, I don't think that sexualizing would not happen if it had the name
> > "James" (people being people, after all).
> > The jokes might be less (because our society unfortunately tends to
> > objectify and sexualize women more than men, and also because
> unfortunately
> > there are many more men than women programmers), but they'd still
> happen.
> > The jokes about a straight/bisexual woman or gay/bisexual man who spends
> a
> > lot of late nights with James would still happen... like I said,
> > people are people, and they *will* make jokes and bad puns if there is
> any
> > opening for such.
> > (it could even be a straight guy or lesbian woman - if Julia were named
> > James, I'm sure I'd have been the brunt of many jokes about how I must
> be
> > really be gay, from all the nights I've been spending with James).
> Isnt that what the CoC is trying to do - clearly state that any joke
> or statement that objectifies or puts down people of **any** gender is
> not Ok? Its quite common to hear such jokes between friends and people
> that one knows well, but given the widespread use of FOSS in business,
> it (Foss) is an extension of the professional space where your
> above-mentioned scenarios would not be acceptable in a public setting.
> If its not acceptable in an office where one is expected to follow
> professional norms, why treat Foss volunteers with any less respect
> than what your co-workers deserve?
>
Exactly. I was just trying to bring up the point that this sort of problem
would have arisen with *any*
name that was a common human name (just probably not so frequent if it were
masculine, precisely
because unfortunately our society objectifies and sexualizes women way more
than men)
> I think the important points would be to
> > 1) *gently* remind people to not anthropomorphize Julia
> > 2) remind them that in English and other languages where possible,
> neuter
> > pronouns should be used
> > 3) point out that *real* cases of sexualization are not considered
> > acceptable in public forums about Julia.
> The Geek Feminism wiki has a longer list, as does the Rust and other
> communities[1][3] so you may want to use those for reference while
> improving the BR[2].
>
Those are very good links, and I think it would be good if the JCS links to
or incorporates the OCC ([3]).
>> Carlos, I want to apologize for making an issue of this at the risk of
> >> alienating or shaming you – that is absolutely not the intention and I
> hope
> >> it doesn't have that effect. For what it's worth, I don't think that
> your
> >> comment was meant maliciously and I wish I didn't have to say any of
> this.
> >> But standing by our community standards is too important not to say
> >> something.
> +1.
>
+1 also.
> >
> > The sad thing here is that it seems that Carlos very good points on
> naming
> > have been lost, because of a single line:
> Yup, I was enjoying the technical discussion until that line, which ...
>
Hopefully the *technical* discussion has now been restarted by Tomas. +1
> >>are mostly courting her because of how beautiful she is
> > which in Spanish would probably not be an issue, because the "her" and
> "she"
> > are simply how you have to say it
> > (and Carlos' first language might also not be English).
> ... was, and to <quote> (a fortiori, this is specially true for Julia,
> considering that -by now- people are mostly courting her because of
> how beautiful she is). </quote>
> The Latin phrase `a fortiori` when used in English[4] is an adverbial
> phrase meaning "by even greater force of logic" or "all the more so",
> so I dont think Stefan misread the "sexualization" aspect by a
> non-native English language speaker/user.
>
I didn't understand the Latin, thanks for explaining.
The "courting" is where I think the sentence definitely crossed the line
into
"sexualization", and yes, it did need to be pointed out.
If it had been "investigating" or "looking into", it could have been just a
literal translation
from how it would be said in Spanish (which would still need to have
pointed out that
she/her should be it/its in English).
> When I first read Stefan's email I was wondering if I should thank him
> publicly or privately - the former runs the risk of protests and
> arguments about the need for a CoC and I chose to stay silent to avoid
> the inevitable in Foss! But, its important to speak up because long
> threads delving into the English language minutiae come across as a
> justification for negative behaviour and while that isnt new, it
> definitely makes me uncomfortable even writing this email - I am a
> non-native English speaker who does not want to argue endlessly on the
> semantics and etymology of natural[5] languages on a mailing list.
>
Not meant as an *excuse*, more an explanation. I think it's great that the
Julia community
should strive to be as inclusive as possible, and avoid things that would
make members of the community
feel uncomfortable or unwelcomed.
> Most interestingly, thus far, Carlos didnt claim that (non-native
> English language speaker) as an excuse, but the responses to Stefan in
> this thread are making me wonder - if a core-dev is being called out
> publicly for enforcing community standards, how would the community
> treat a newbie (especially, a woman) who complained of being harassed,
> had creepy comments in private or was stalked on IRC? Something to
> think about, surely!
>
No, Carlos (surely without malice), did cross the line, and Stefan
definitely should have
pointed it out, I just think the lines need to be made clearer, both for
English, and other languages.
> Till date, I have been happily promoting Julia to one-and-all, but the
> community responses speaks volumes. I truly hope that the community
> supports the core-devs in their efforts to make this space more
> welcoming to all.
>
Yes - and I hope the core-devs themselves do that as well.
> [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations
> [2] The BR : https://github.com/JuliaLang/julialang.github.com/issues/200
> [3] http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_fortiori_argument#Usage
> [5] Far more productive to invest that time and energy in procuring a
> linguistics degree, especially because women keep hearing similar
> arguments across Foss communities - frankly, the echo chamber isnt
> very convincing.
> - SVAKSHA ॥ http://about.me/svaksha ॥
>
