nothing is like it seems to be.
as Madhu M. Kurup mentioned, the golden rule:
> --
> Assume Goodwill.
> --
Hi va, hi all,
first I'm not who you might think I am. And, va, sorry for misusing your
id to send this email, I'm not you ether. I am Rene,
who missed the initial mail on this list while traveling on a nice slow
bike-trip from Trivandrum to Bangalore - else I would have responded
earlier. How can you know? You have to trust me. I'm telling you who I
am, and thats (as far as I got the context) what Dinesh did, thats what
Kavita did. The only way [1] to solve the problem is to trust my words
[2]. But, apply the golden rule and assume goodwill, as far as you can.
So, where is the problem? That you can't be sure about Identities? And
you like to have something to believe in, like an email address? No,
never trust the email-id, and if you like (and if you use Thunderbird or
Seamonkey) give the free extension called Virtual Identity I'm
programming a try [3].
But - after the discussion changed so rapidly the topic - there seems to
be something about identities which is really important. First thing is,
that it's really hard for everybody to map real-live identities with the
ones we meet in the net, which initially caused this trouble. Second,
people who like to communicate with us (and map imaginations of our
identities) like to assume that (all?) the aspects of our identities are
stable, which they aren't. Third, and most important for this discussion
here, you have an identity problem at LCIN, defining an exclusion scheme
based on a gender definition you never made yourself clear (at least
till the BoF) (which is not meant offensive in any way). Therefore you
are missing a way of trusting your own exclusion scheme and applying it,
so you are afraid that there are people ('men') intruding your list.
The part of the LCIN BoF I was able to attend just brought up a lot of
questions about identities. I'm glad that you opened your group at this
point to the public, and I think it's an essential work you are planning
to do. I did gender work in Germany and understand/can imagine that it's
a tough topic with a lot of pressure you often have to stand.
But I missed your (i.e. you on the stage, don't know who was there)
ability to honestly listen to the better or worse comments from the
audience. You might have had to much trouble with ignorant people
before, but it's never a good step to fight the people who are willing
to talk to you. Apply the golden rule, as long as it works, and assume
goodwill. And if you call yourself LinuxChicks, don't feel that bad if
somebody calls you chicks, just use the same amount of humor which
brought you to the acceptance of your groups name.
A really fruitful reading of Judith Butlers works (and the following of
the feminist developments) can strengthen your and our all sensibility
for the impossibility to define whats men, whats woman without
establishing gender inequalities the same time. Or, as Simone de
Beauvoir stated "one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", which is
the same (or at least similar) for a man. So, having a beard and a
ponytail (and not being Dinesh!) you might like to define me as a men,
but I won't give anybody such an easy chance to force me into a gender
scheme they create. I'm myself, thats enough.
So, why writing so much? Cause i think a group like LinuxChicks is
really required, not only, but also for India. And I don't like the
name, but it's not my place to make a point. But if you like the name,
than accept to be called as chicks, not that I'll do this. And please
try to continue your important work and stop fighting those people who
attending your BoF Sessions, who are listening to you, also if they are
possibly not agreeing with you in all cases. Not that I agree with
Dinesh (or with his way of acting) all the time, but (as far as I'm
remember) he pointed at the difficulty of checking who is a woman or who
is a men (or a dog?) on the internet.
So, please, start tackling the issue behind that point, make gender
definitions in our/your society a point to discuss and criticize.
Playing with identities is one of the main achievements of the feminist
movement, in a result questioning not only the definition of woman, but
the definition of men as well. I, at least, won't go behind that point
again.
Al the best,
Rene
[1] if you like technical solutions for social problems you can try to
use email-signatures, for sure.
[2] Who can you trust? http://absorb.it/docs/Ejury_WhoCanYouTrust.pdf
[3] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/594 (bug-reports
welcome)
