Anti-women post goes unchecked on Linux Australia list

Forgive me, "overblown" is very likely not a word anyone else would have used.

it's a way to attract attention, and the infantile minds of young males crave attention. So, by "overblown" I mean it gets undue attention not for being exposed, but in the furor, the circus, the bru-ha-ha, which occurs when it is exposed.

Attitudes such as sexism and racism are attitudes associated with generations. You cannot, in the main, change the opinions and attitudes of people once they are part of their world view. For significant change, we need to roll over a generation.

I can understand the impatience of people to change the world in this regard but realistically, these things take time.

On the other hand, just look how much has changed over the past 100 years compared to the 1000's of years of endemic racism, sexism, seemingly constant war, oppression of people. Just a few decades ago, we had slavery.

Some people want everything now. However, I think that some people have very short memories. Change happens, it just doesn't happen very quickly.

@DrGeoffrey Well, you "PC" United States has a wonderful track record when it comes to discrimination: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." (Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14)

That's far more real than any "sexism" that you may encounter in FOSS. And let's be clear: communists, muslims, fascists, pedophiles, sexists - they're all part of the FOSS community. Whether you like it or not. Al they have to do is code and publish it under GPL or another OSI compatible license.

Or would you require a "statement" of "good behavior" and "proof" of "a well qualified belief system" before you use their code?

I don't believe in God. On the other hand, I do believe in a Goddess.

:o)

BTW, it would have been nice to post the entire piece and not lynch the guy on an "out of context" remark:

"Maggie Thatcher was never PM to improve numbers; she was destined to be leader of UK; she earned the role. Affirmative action needed no part in her glory. She was the best candidate. Yet I think she must have struggled to overcome doubt."

The whole post is nothing but putting serious doubt on "affirmative action" - a "technique" I (and many Dutch with me) question as well.

Don't go for "America's next top model" - get a decent education. Don't go for the glossies, buy a computer mag or bikers mag.

Beez, your Mississippi example proves Skelband's point. Just look at when it was written.

And as far as the use of images of female bodies in publications, that's because it sells.

When it no longer sells, they'll stop using them.

@Bob_Robertson That's the problem: it sells. It sells so well that young women are starving themselves to look like those Photoshopped model - and all the time they could have been coding - or get some other, decent education. Don't you think the problem lies a bit THERE instead of the odd infantile nerd shouting his mouth off?

@Bob_Robertson BTW, it's still LAW today, that piece of Mississippi State Constitution. It isn't repealed. The US constitution was written around 1777 - so that one's stupid too? Or do we make an exception because we happen to agree with it? Careful, careful..

> ...it's still LAW today, that piece of Mississippi State Constitution. It isn't repealed...

And it's up to Mississippians to change that if they want to. It doesn't affect anyone else. If they don't want to, who are we to tell them otherwise? Which has the higher priority: Self determination, or current ideas of political correctness? As you said, careful. Such decisions aren't to be made lightly.

> Don't you think the problem lies a bit THERE instead of the odd infantile nerd shouting his mouth off?

Yes, which is why I raised my daughter to understand what she was seeing.

Did you?

@Bob_Robertson I told my daughter that you have two choices in life: either you do the socially acceptable - and everybody will love you provided that you live your life the way THEY want. Or you live for yourself - the way YOU like it.

In the end it boils down to this: you die with regrets about all the things you shouldn't have done - or you die with regrets about all the things you should have done.

The rest is completely uninteresting.

@jdixon "And it's up to all sexists to change that if they want to. It doesn't affect anyone else. If they don't want to, who are we to tell them otherwise? Which has the higher priority: Self determination, or current ideas of political correctness? As you said, careful. Such decisions aren't to be made lightly."

I only changed one word.

"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." (North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8)

> I only changed one word.

You might want to carefully consider the nature of your change before concluding it doesn't make any difference. The last time I checked, sexists didn't all live in a given geographical area or vote in the same elections.

> North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8

And again, it's North Carolina's business, not yours or mine. Or do you want to have veto authority over the decisions of everyone else in the entire world? There are words for that, totalitarianism and dictatorship are two of them. At what point do you have the authority to override the lawfully agreed on decisions of others, based solely on YOUR beliefs?

Keep it up, Beez, I'll make an anarchist of you yet.

I personally would take issue with anyone's opinion that models are not doing something worthy and worthwhile. That springs from a typically anal religious prejudice all of its own.

That models feel that they have to be emaciated is yet another bizarre prejudice on the behalf of fashion designers. I, for one, prefer to see meat on people :D

@Bob_R:

"Anarchists unite!"

:)

I think most Australians welcome women into ANY position they wish to take up with only one proviso: that they can do the job effectively. It is only when women are selected for positions on the basis of their gender that the "drums of warning" begin to beat loudly.

I personally believe that selection of women to fill a position on the basis of gender is patronising and degrading to women. I'm very proud and pleased to see the ladies fill any position at all, provided they wish to do so and have the required skills. Encourage women into more positions ? Absolutely ! But there are ways of doing so that are not directly confrontational.

I think David Newall was deliberately "stirring the possum" with a hidden agenda, and it's very unfortunate that his post was not caught earlier before even this minimal damage was done.

@jdixon First, Americans were never bothered by "geographical location", when violation of human rights was concerned, e.g. China, Russia. Or was it alright for the Nazis to exterminate Jews, because it was restricted to a "geographical location"? (Godwins are fashionable again). Second, this *is* Australia - so what?

Your position is simply not tenible.

> First, Americans were never bothered by "geographical location", when violation of human rights was concerned, e.g. China, Russia.

And the fact that US government officials are sanctimonious hypocrites who pretend to take moral positions to further political goals means exactly what in this context?

> Or was it alright for the Nazis to exterminate Jews, because it was restricted to a "geographical location"?

Right? No. Legal, yes. Has it escaped your attention that WWII was fought to stop Germany's military expansion, not because of the Jews.

> Your position is simply not tenible.

But yours to have veto authority over the legally established laws of everyone else in the world is? Good luck with that.

> Legal, yes.

So many forget that the atrocities committed were perfectly legal, be it Germany, China, Cambodia, Russia, America, wherever.