March 2017 - Esug-list - lists.esug.org

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Eliot Miranda

Hi David, On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:06 AM, David Mason <dmason(a)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"). > There are slang terms. I like "bods", short for bodies. There's also "folks". Marge Piercy used "per", from "person", in one of her sci-fi novels (A Girl in Time?). Then there's the gang, the group, etc. > 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(a)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-i >> s-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(a)lists.esug.org >> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > Esug-list(a)lists.esug.org > http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org > > -- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot

March 14, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Martin McClure

On 03/12/2017 12:56 AM, Jigyasa Grover wrote: > 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 :) Yes! Thank you for this suggestion. Regards, -Martin

March 14, 2017

[ANN] Fog - Ethereum driver

by Santiago Bragagnolo

Hi all. Im happy to announce a pre release of the Fog ethereum driver that we develop in the space of an Inria project. It still not complete but is already usable for some experiments and simple projects. You can downloadit from https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog/ (https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog/releases/tag/v0.1.1.1) Dependencies <https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog#rhash>RHash sudo apt-get install rhash <https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog#solidity>Solidity npm install solc <https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog#download-code>Download code <https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog#iceberg--baseline>Iceberg / Baseline Metacello new baseline: 'Fog'; repository: 'github://sbragagnolo/Fog:v0.1.1.1/src'; load. <https://github.com/sbragagnolo/Fog#by-hand>By hand You may want to use this version for having access to some scripts and contracts samples. git checkout git@github.com:sbragagnolo/Fog.git git checkout v0.1.1.1 Metacello new baseline: 'Fog'; repository: 'filetree:///path/to/git-repository/Fog/src';; load. It's based on the standar API for javascript ( https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/JavaScript-API) . It provides interaction with remote contracts, it do as well provides a way for navigating the architecture objects: blocks, transactions, accounts and contracts. I hope you find it useful. Feel free to fill the github issue tracker with anything you find :). I will come to you with some new exciting news about ethereum soon :) Santiago.

March 13, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Antony Blakey

> On 13 Mar 2017, at 11:18, jtuchel(a)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

March 13, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by jtuchel＠objektfabrik.de

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

March 13, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Santiago Bragagnolo

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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum <ron(a)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-w… 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(a)lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

March 13, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Ron Teitelbaum

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum <ron(a)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-w… > > > > 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. >

March 13, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Antony Blakey

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum <ron(a)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-w… > > 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.

March 12, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Ron Teitelbaum

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-w… All the best, Ron On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:58 PM Antony Blakey <antony.blakey(a)gmail.com> wrote: > A am so hesitant to enter into this, but ... > > > On 12 Mar 2017, at 20:53, Ron Teitelbaum <ron(a)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 > >

March 12, 2017

Re: [Esug-list] getting more women in Smalltalk

by Antony Blakey

A am so hesitant to enter into this, but ... > On 12 Mar 2017, at 20:53, Ron Teitelbaum <ron(a)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

March 12, 2017