Thales is looking for a UI expert in Smalltalk and Pharo :)
Dear Stephane, Serge and everyone else
Glad to know that this community is working to bring in diversity from all
sphere and strives for inclusion. A little step of either using she/he or a
gender neutral term would encompass all :)
As Serge rightly pointed, we are working to associate Pharo Consortium as an
organisation with various Open Source Programs worldwide like Google Summer
of Code https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/ , GNOME Outreachy
https://www.gnome.org/outreachy/ and many others.
Let's keep this spirit alive !
Cheers.
Jigyasa Grover
--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Thales-is-looking-for-a-UI-expert-in-Smalltalk-and-Pharo-tp4937527p4938275.html
Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
With respect, it is not about obsessing on words.
Male privilege is so ingrained - particularly in the tech world - that we
honestly, and with good intent, think that words like "guy" are neutral.
In the interest of establishing some empathy, think for a moment how you
would feel if people normally referred to you as "gal" or "girl" or a group
to which you belonged as "gals". If you heard that someone was looking to
hire a gal, would you think it included you? (The plural form is
sometimes considered gender-neutral, but personally I have to work to think
of it that way; and the singular clearly refers to a male.)
Almost everyone I know in the tech field, including everyone I've met in
the ESUG community considers ours to be a gender neutral discipline, and
bemoans the fact that things aren't more balanced. Unfortunately, that
doesn't always translate to inclusivity (including language).
Unfortunately, English doesn't have a single sylable, gender neutral, noun
for groups of individuals. French has "gens", but the best that English can
do is "people". For individuals, it's worse as neither language does better
than "person" (which interestingly is feminine in French - "la personne").
I'm sure many consider this discussion to be irrelevant and off-topic and
"just want to get back to programming". Me too, but I want lots of female
colleagues, and colleagues from other races, countries, and backgrounds, so
I'm willing to make all the efforts I can to make that happen - including
language, grad-student supervision, undergrad mentoring, co-authoring
papers, and funding.
Thanks, ../Dave
On 12 March 2017 at 04:56, Jigyasa Grover grover.jigyasa1@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Stephane, Serge and everyone else
Glad to know that this community is working to bring in diversity from all
sphere and strives for inclusion. A little step of either using she/he or a
gender neutral term would encompass all :)
As Serge rightly pointed, we are working to associate Pharo Consortium as
an
organisation with various Open Source Programs worldwide like Google
Summer
of Code https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/ , GNOME Outreachy
https://www.gnome.org/outreachy/ and many others.
Let's keep this spirit alive !
Cheers.
Jigyasa Grover
--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Thales-
is-looking-for-a-UI-expert-in-Smalltalk-and-Pharo-tp4937527p4938275.html
Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Women are excellent programmers, are very disciplined, work well in groups
and are overall are much better at encouraging people to work together than
men I know (including myself). Any community that pushes females out of
programming is doing themselves a real disservice. I would say the same
thing for politics too. We need more women participation if we want things
to get better.
My $0.02
All the best,
Ron Teitelbaum
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:07 PM David Mason dmason@ryerson.ca wrote:
With respect, it is not about obsessing on words.
Male privilege is so ingrained - particularly in the tech world - that we
honestly, and with good intent, think that words like "guy" are neutral.
In the interest of establishing some empathy, think for a moment how you
would feel if people normally referred to you as "gal" or "girl" or a group
to which you belonged as "gals". If you heard that someone was looking to
hire a gal, would you think it included you? (The plural form is
sometimes considered gender-neutral, but personally I have to work to think
of it that way; and the singular clearly refers to a male.)
Almost everyone I know in the tech field, including everyone I've met in
the ESUG community considers ours to be a gender neutral discipline, and
bemoans the fact that things aren't more balanced. Unfortunately, that
doesn't always translate to inclusivity (including language).
Unfortunately, English doesn't have a single sylable, gender neutral, noun
for groups of individuals. French has "gens", but the best that English can
do is "people". For individuals, it's worse as neither language does better
than "person" (which interestingly is feminine in French - "la personne").
I'm sure many consider this discussion to be irrelevant and off-topic and
"just want to get back to programming". Me too, but I want lots of female
colleagues, and colleagues from other races, countries, and backgrounds, so
I'm willing to make all the efforts I can to make that happen - including
language, grad-student supervision, undergrad mentoring, co-authoring
papers, and funding.
Thanks, ../Dave
On 12 March 2017 at 04:56, Jigyasa Grover grover.jigyasa1@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Stephane, Serge and everyone else
Glad to know that this community is working to bring in diversity from all
sphere and strives for inclusion. A little step of either using she/he or a
gender neutral term would encompass all :)
As Serge rightly pointed, we are working to associate Pharo Consortium as
an
organisation with various Open Source Programs worldwide like Google
Summer
of Code https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/ , GNOME Outreachy
https://www.gnome.org/outreachy/ and many others.
Let's keep this spirit alive !
Cheers.
Jigyasa Grover
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Thales-is-looking-for-a-UI-expert-in-Smalltalk-and-Pharo-tp4937527p4938275.html
Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
A am so hesitant to enter into this, but ...
On 12 Mar 2017, at 20:53, Ron Teitelbaum ron@3dicc.com wrote:
... overall are much better at encouraging people to work together than men I know (including myself).
My experience is different. Women who are truly not constrained by expectations of how women should behave, are just as likely to be introverted, or aggressive, or have any of the other negative (and positive) traits that all human beings have. In particular, they do not make better managers by virtue of their sex, nor are they more cooperative.
I suspect you didn't mean it this way, but it's a form of sexism to portray women as somehow intrinsically superior in some 'warm and fuzzy' way, as though those 'soft' skills are somehow biological. In a truly equal society, that would be as much of a stereotype is the idea that women just aren't nerdy or techie. Women can be bitchy, manipulative, corrupt etc etc, as you would expect from any human being. IMO it is also important not to fall into the error of 'the virtue of the oppressed' (as long as there is oppression).
Yes, we absolutely should have a level of participation that reflects the surrounding social distribution, but not because it will make things any 'better', but more that any representational inequality indicates yjay some form of systemic discrimination or disincentive is at work.
Antony Blakey
Ph: +31 623 281 557
Hi Anthony,
No I absolutely do mean it this way and there is some good research to back
it up.
https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/13/collective-intelligence-of-women-save-world/
All the best,
Ron
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:58 PM Antony Blakey antony.blakey@gmail.com
wrote:
A am so hesitant to enter into this, but ...
On 12 Mar 2017, at 20:53, Ron Teitelbaum ron@3dicc.com wrote:
... overall are much better at encouraging people to work together than
men I know (including myself).
My experience is different. Women who are truly not constrained by
expectations of how women should behave, are just as likely to be
introverted, or aggressive, or have any of the other negative (and
positive) traits that all human beings have. In particular, they do not
make better managers by virtue of their sex, nor are they more cooperative.
I suspect you didn't mean it this way, but it's a form of sexism to
portray women as somehow intrinsically superior in some 'warm and fuzzy'
way, as though those 'soft' skills are somehow biological. In a truly equal
society, that would be as much of a stereotype is the idea that women just
aren't nerdy or techie. Women can be bitchy, manipulative, corrupt etc etc,
as you would expect from any human being. IMO it is also important not to
fall into the error of 'the virtue of the oppressed' (as long as there is
oppression).
Yes, we absolutely should have a level of participation that reflects the
surrounding social distribution, but not because it will make things any
'better', but more that any representational inequality indicates yjay some
form of systemic discrimination or disincentive is at work.
Antony Blakey
Ph: +31 623 281 557
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum ron@3dicc.com wrote:
Hi Anthony,
No I absolutely do mean it this way and there is some good research to
back it up.
https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/13/collective-intelligence-of-women-save-world/
This study, and all others like it, operate in the context of the existing
social structures i.e. women being trained in certain ways, and moulded by
society. So such behaviour and ways of interacting is in no way intrinsic
to their sex. The very attempts that we are making towards equality, will,
ironically, eliminate this difference. When the sexes are equal, raised in
equal environments with no sex-specific induction into ways of thinking or
modes of operation, then there will be fundamentally no difference in the
interaction styles and potentials. This is my point about this way of
thinking i.e. 'women are better at X'. Any quality that can be ascribed to
a group that is not strictly biological, must be environmental. And hence
will be socially determined. The idea of non-discrimination applied from
birth would seem to preclude such qualities being correlated with intrinsic
characteristics.
And as a direct counter-example - what would those studies say about
trans-women and trans-men? If the response is 'well, it depends how they
were raised', then there goes the biological link.
Hence, my point that to say that women are intrinsically better (or worse)
at anything, or have intrinsic qualities, means that you are either
ascribing such qualities to biology, or making a distinction that is
fundamentally dependent on existing forms of discrimination i.e 'women
raised/trained/moulded in this-or-that society are ...'.
But this is so off topic for this list at this point ...
Cheers,
Antony Blakey.
Hi Antony,
There is no reason to believe that it is not biologically based. There are
a number fo traits that have strong evolutionary bias including the ability
to see colors, hear sounds, smell food, reactions times etc that are
isolated to sex chromosomes for a reason. The aggressive hunter skills do
not necessarily translate well to a gatherer society.
As much as I would like to think that eventually, a equal society will lead
to the decrease in the differences between men and women, it is not the
case now and any systematic bias against women, saying that men can do just
as well, ignores qualities that are severely lacking and are in need in
today's society, diplomatic corps, scientific and engineering fields, and
leadership in general.
I don't know that those skills will make a positive or negative
contribution to the world but we have tried the other way long enough and
frankly, I do not think society is benefiting from the current situation.
I for one would like to see women take on greater leadership roles.
Again this is my own opinion, you are welcome to yours.
All the best,
Ron
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:41 PM Antony Blakey antony.blakey@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum ron@3dicc.com wrote:
Hi Anthony,
No I absolutely do mean it this way and there is some good research to
back it up.
https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/13/collective-intelligence-of-women-save-world/
This study, and all others like it, operate in the context of the existing
social structures i.e. women being trained in certain ways, and moulded by
society. So such behaviour and ways of interacting is in no way intrinsic
to their sex. The very attempts that we are making towards equality, will,
ironically, eliminate this difference. When the sexes are equal, raised in
equal environments with no sex-specific induction into ways of thinking or
modes of operation, then there will be fundamentally no difference in the
interaction styles and potentials. This is my point about this way of
thinking i.e. 'women are better at X'. Any quality that can be ascribed to
a group that is not strictly biological, must be environmental. And hence
will be socially determined. The idea of non-discrimination applied from
birth would seem to preclude such qualities being correlated with intrinsic
characteristics.
And as a direct counter-example - what would those studies say about
trans-women and trans-men? If the response is 'well, it depends how they
were raised', then there goes the biological link.
Hence, my point that to say that women are intrinsically better (or worse)
at anything, or have intrinsic qualities, means that you are either
ascribing such qualities to biology, or making a distinction that is
fundamentally dependent on existing forms of discrimination i.e 'women
raised/trained/moulded in this-or-that society are ...'.
But this is so off topic for this list at this point ...
Cheers,
Antony Blakey.
Normally when I look for reasons for doing something, pros and cons, is
because I'm wanting to be sure, and I'm wanting to not do a mistake. Maybe
I'm trying to excuse myself on something i did wrong, or maybe I am looking
for a reason for not doing it at all.
If I add any of this reasons to the word woman, I feel shivers on my spine.
So, let not ask why to put us together. This question does not makes any
sense. Because the very first division we did as society is really
unfortunate, and it does not make sense either.
Going back to the subject: how to bring women to the community, It's a
really hard question. I would check what kind of careers are chosen by
women, in the lines where we can be useful, and take technology to this
places, under a feminist flag in a pro feminism program. Try to mix their
needs with ours, and a start a cycle of creative development. As Thibault,
by example, he does with his attempt of mixing art and coding.
Basically, to build a bridge based on the need of their professions or
future professions, is a way to do something.
Now, what are those ?
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 01:27 Ron Teitelbaum ron@3dicc.com wrote:
Hi Antony,
There is no reason to believe that it is not biologically based. There are
a number fo traits that have strong evolutionary bias including the ability
to see colors, hear sounds, smell food, reactions times etc that are
isolated to sex chromosomes for a reason. The aggressive hunter skills do
not necessarily translate well to a gatherer society.
As much as I would like to think that eventually, a equal society will lead
to the decrease in the differences between men and women, it is not the
case now and any systematic bias against women, saying that men can do just
as well, ignores qualities that are severely lacking and are in need in
today's society, diplomatic corps, scientific and engineering fields, and
leadership in general.
I don't know that those skills will make a positive or negative
contribution to the world but we have tried the other way long enough and
frankly, I do not think society is benefiting from the current situation.
I for one would like to see women take on greater leadership roles.
Again this is my own opinion, you are welcome to yours.
All the best,
Ron
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 7:41 PM Antony Blakey antony.blakey@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum ron@3dicc.com wrote:
Hi Anthony,
No I absolutely do mean it this way and there is some good research to back
it up.
https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/13/collective-intelligence-of-women-save-world/
This study, and all others like it, operate in the context of the existing
social structures i.e. women being trained in certain ways, and moulded by
society. So such behaviour and ways of interacting is in no way intrinsic
to their sex. The very attempts that we are making towards equality, will,
ironically, eliminate this difference. When the sexes are equal, raised in
equal environments with no sex-specific induction into ways of thinking or
modes of operation, then there will be fundamentally no difference in the
interaction styles and potentials. This is my point about this way of
thinking i.e. 'women are better at X'. Any quality that can be ascribed to
a group that is not strictly biological, must be environmental. And hence
will be socially determined. The idea of non-discrimination applied from
birth would seem to preclude such qualities being correlated with intrinsic
characteristics.
And as a direct counter-example - what would those studies say about
trans-women and trans-men? If the response is 'well, it depends how they
were raised', then there goes the biological link.
Hence, my point that to say that women are intrinsically better (or worse)
at anything, or have intrinsic qualities, means that you are either
ascribing such qualities to biology, or making a distinction that is
fundamentally dependent on existing forms of discrimination i.e 'women
raised/trained/moulded in this-or-that society are ...'.
But this is so off topic for this list at this point ...
Cheers,
Antony Blakey.
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org
I am not sure I am qualified to answer and hope for a few comments from
female Smalltalkers
I usually feel quite uncomfortable in this topic. Just recently I asked
an honest question on Twitter about how to market our product to both
women and men (and any other gender, ftm) without making things sound
"overly politically correct". This question alone was countered by the
argument that the question per se is sexism, because it is unrespectful.
So by asking the question, I felt like being attacked as a chauvinist.
This is not helpful at all...
OTOH, if I just say I'm male and can't comment, I don't help either. So
what can I do?
In the case of Smalltalk, I guess there is not so much gender-specific
that can be done. As a small community, we can hardly get more women
into IT. Woman who already have a foot in IT and need to decide what
language or technology to use probably first look at a few alternatives
that can offer value for their goal. I'd suggest this is not gender
specific ;-)
Here we should focus on questions like "what can Smalltalk offer to make
current projects faster, better, easier, cheaper, funnier"?
Smalltalk excels in a lot of areas, but not much in the ones that are
attractive to young developers these days. People need to build cool
mobile applications to make money. Their web applications need to make a
great impression next to AngularJS, Ember and such. We cannot really
show much in that area, can we?
If our technology isn't helpful for them, people (of all genders) will
look elsewhere, no matter what nice a community we are.
So I am not sure we have gender problem. Looking through our diverse
mailing lists and forums, I don't think I can find much traffic that
would shy women (or gay, or transgender people) away. I think the active
Smalltalk forums are helpful, welcoming and almost completely free of
any offending comments compared to other IT communities.
I hope our female community members feel the same and feel welcomed and
supported. I would be surprised if they don't. If not, I hope they speak
up and help us work on it.
Our main problem is that we are working in a technology that is great in
all things code quality, refactoring, elegance, maintainability,
testing, explorative research and such, but we have poor support for
most of today's mainstream technologies. This is what keeps our
community small and doesn't help in attracting women.
Sorry if this again is ignorant towards the problem (like my Twitter
thread), I didn't intend it to be. I think we should first ask ourselves
what would be needed to attract more people into the Smalltalk niche,
and am relatively sure our community is friendly und supportive already.
I am not sure if programming courses exclusively for girls would be
helpful. Here in Germany, some schools tried to separate classes for
Math and Physics, and thus help girls find their fascination for these
among girls, but the results were not really game-changing. The theory
behind that was that girls might shy away from saying something in class
because the boys would make fun of them if they give wrong answers. But
it seems that was not the problem.
Joachim
On 13 Mar 2017, at 11:18, jtuchel@objektfabrik.de wrote:
I am not sure if programming courses exclusively for girls would be helpful. Here in Germany, some schools tried to separate classes for Math and Physics, and thus help girls find their fascination for these among girls, but the results were not really game-changing. The theory behind that was that girls might shy away from saying something in class because the boys would make fun of them if they give wrong answers. But it seems that was not the problem.
In Australia studies have shown that single sex classes for STEM in primary and secondary education leads to better outcomes for girls. The conclusion is that a) boys are more aggressive at answering, and overestimate their competence, and that exactly the opposite applies to girls. OTOH, boys do worse in single-sex situations, but then educational outcomes for boys are getting comparatively worse across the board in Australia, because outcomes for girls are improving. But there is a significant drop-off when it comes to career choices, so the improving educational results aren't necessarily translating.
We have a variety of affirmative action programs in Australia to help deal with this issue, although most are focussed on helping Aboriginal students, whose life, health, educational and career outcomes are a national disgrace.
Antony Blakey
Ph: +31 623 281 557