Life has been interesting since I wrote a piece called ”Sexism: Open Source Software’s Dirty Little Secret” for Datamation a couple of weeks ago. I won’t go into details, but, since then, replies pros and cons have occupied a disproportionate amount of my time. The supportive replies are gratifying, if embarrassing, but what really disheartens me is the dreary sameness of the hostile responses. Free software, I like to think, attracts intelligent and rational people. So why are so many of the hostile responses so supremely illogical?
Let’s start with Sam Varghese’s reply to my article. After making some sensible points about the current background to the issue, such as the upcoming mini-summit on women in free software Varghese misrepresents me by saying that I have already concluded that sexism exists in FOSS. In fact, I have simply looked at a set of figures that shows a surprisingly low proportion of women in free software – a figure far too low to be the result of margin of error or in any way ambiguous – and concluded a systemic bias. Correlation, of course, is not the same as causation, but when a trend is so pronounced, causation does become a leading hypothesis.
Varghese is on better logical ground when he examines the figures I cited. However, while he validly suggests that the higher figures of female involvement for proprietary development might include women who are not directly involved with coding, he neglects to consider that many roles in FOSS are also not directly involved with coding, such as documentation or user assistance.
However, Varghese’s article seems a model of reason besides one written by Hans Bezemer. What is especially fascinating about Bezemer’s piece is how many logical fallacies and inconsistencies it squeezes into such a small space.
Bezemer gets off to a false start by framing the debate in terms of either-or: Either we have free will and can change our behavior, or we don’t. In such complex questions, coming down entirely on one side is an over-simplification that creates distortion. In particular, he classifies all feminist thought as having the same basic underpinning of assumptions about free will — something that nobody who had actually read any feminists could possibly believe, and that renders anything else he says untrustworthy.
Bezemer continues by making a biological appeal to authority. We can’t do anything about sexism, he declares, because gender differences are innate. I am not sure whether he also lacks knowledge of biology or hopes that his opponents do, but, once again, matters are nowhere near as simple as he suggests. But, by pretending that they are, he tries to close off discussion.
Bezemer then stoops to ad hominem arguments — attacks on the people holding views he disagrees with, rather than on their arguments. He does so by implying that they are attempting to impose “political correctness,” a label that is meant to be both dismissive and demeaning, and leave the impression that the views of his opponents are valueless. Yet what is being asked? Only the same basic level of professionalism that is required in any modern workplace. Or, to put things another way, common decency.
But perhaps Bezemer doesn’t want to oppose common decency in public. So, instead he weakens his argument still further by implying that his opponents hold views that they have never expressed. “Unless a huge number of males quit making FOSS software,” he says, “that ratio is not going to change – no matter what.”
Of course, this comment ignores that the ratio has changed in several projects that have attracted seven or eight times more women than free software as a whole. But the real point is, where has anyone suggested that men should quit projects? The idea is entirely Bezemer’s. Apparently, either the idea of feminism in free software raises the specter of affirmative action in his mind, or else he wants to raise the specter in other people’s minds. Either way, the suggestion is not the highest-minded part of his argument.
Bezemer winds down by saying that “only coding matters,” and that women who want to contribute to free software should simply do so. Unfortunately, his generosity is belied by his apparent need to write an anti-feminist piece. If only coding matters to him, then why does he ignore the issue? Why would he try so hard to debunk an issue that could be preventing more code contributions? If code contributions are really that important to him, then why is he not doing everything in his power to encourage more?
Bezemer then concludes with two classic bits of evasion. First, he insists that he is not sexist, although his eagerness to see gender differences where the evidence is spotty and contradictory suggests otherwise. Then, he reverses himself and says that people can call him sexist if they want, but should let people like him do their own thing. “We’re people, too, you know,” he says, neatly turning himself into the victim.
In the end, while both Varghese and Bezemer claim some sympathy with the aspirations of female contributors to free software, in both cases their articles amount to a plea to leave things as they are. Both are defending the status quo and any sexism that might be involved in it.
But, just to complicate things, I suspect that both are moved to write at least in part because of their dislike for me. As a quick search on our names can quickly prove, both Bezemer and Varghese dislike me, and criticize me whenever possible, sometimes even to the extent of contradicting or reversing a previous stand. I have no idea what Varghese’s motivation is, and I will spare Bezemer the embarrassment of explaining his possible motivations, but I strongly suspect that both partly oppose efforts to combat sexism simply because I support them.
Still, I urge everyone to read these two bits of anti-feminism. If you don’t already recognize the classic counter-arguments when anyone objects to sexism, you can learn them very quickly from these two articles.
Off the Wall 
Bruce,
As usual you’re rambling on while missing the point completely.
(a) It’s you and Carla that claim that sexism keeps women away from FOSS.
(b) You fail to provide any proof of that causality.
(c) I give to an alternate explanation why women would not participate as much in FOSS as men.
(d) By making this assumption you insult all hard working FOSS people, which seems to be a habit of you.
Whether sexism is wrong or right is an issue I don’t even address.
Hans Bezemer
Hans:
I am not going to waste time arguing with you, especially when much of what you say suggests that you haven’t read what I said very carefully.
However, I will say that you need to learn the distinction between critiquing and insulting. I’m not a fan-boy, and I’m going to comment on problems when I see them. but if I didn’t care about FOSS and think it was important, I wouldn’t be making my living writing about it.
But I’ve given you two replies, and, you are mostly repeating what you have said here or elsewhere. Since this is a private blog and not a public forum, I feel no obligation to keep posting your rants. Don’t bother to send another comment, because I won’t post anything more from you on the subject.
And as usual, you’re not fair. You accuse me of ad hominem attacks. I challenge you to cite them. You, on the other hand, see no point in misrepresenting my person to great extend:
“I will spare Bezemer the embarrassment of explaining his possible motivations.”
Ad hominem attack? Where did I attack you in this way?
I said I wasn’t anti-feminist. Anti-feminist != sexist. This was a hint to Sams article where he posed the issue that this label could be glued to anyone who made a stand.
“Varghese misrepresents me by saying that I have already concluded that sexism exists in FOSS”
“Sexism: FOSS dirty little secret”
I rest my case.
“First, he insists that he is not sexist, although his eagerness to see gender differences where the evidence is spotty and contradictory suggests otherwise.”
I’m quoting established research. You either debunk it or accept it. Evidently, simply quoting it is sexist. If that isn’t PC, I don’t know.
Hans Bezemer
What does the headline of your article say, Byfield? Go read it before you try to “clarify” – a hallmark of the spinmeister. Your headline says “Sexism: FOSS’s dirty little secret”>
If you cannot comprehend that such a headline says that you have concluded clearly that sexism exists in the FOSS community then I cannot argue with you.
You are saying one thing and then trying to pretend that you never said it – something like the fraud Edward de Bono.
And don’t give me the old argument “I don’t headline my articles”; I have worked as a sub-editor for 30 years and a headline is only a product of what the copy conveys.
You have avoided mentioning that the figures you quote date back to 2004-06 and that they are only from the EU. You have no evidence to conclude that a systemic bias exists.
Does a systemic bias also exist against men when it comes to teaching in kindergartens? Is that why 95 percent or more of such teachers are female?
You can stick with what you call logic; it is no skin off my nose if you write silly pieces like the one on sexism and the one on the use of money by KDE and GNOME.
And the silliest thing about you is that you think that my occasional criticism of what you write is because I dislike you; man, I have never met you, have no idea about who the hell you are, and you are concluding that I dislike you? Too much narcissism, old boy, far too much. Any good psychologists out there? Pay one a visit and sort things out.
Sam:
Why do you assume that a headline comes first? Perhaps that is how you work, but a headline is the last thing I write. The article comes first.
As for the evidence that you dislike me — or at least my opinions — nobody would be so obsessive and abusive about replying to me if they were neutral. That’s not narcissim, just simple observation.
Now, I’m going to tell you the same thing I told Hans. I’ve given you two replies, and that’s your limit. Your over-the-top attacks are milding amusing, but not nearly amusing enough for me to keep answering them. Don’t bother sending another comment, because it won’t be published.
And you disagree with two points in my article and then call me supremely illogical? What about the other points I made?
Has it ever entered that round object you call a head that people can have widely differing views on a subject, that a glass can be both half-full and half-empty?
And you have the nerve to talk about intelligence and rationality?
Sam,
If you bother to read in context, I give you credit for some sensible remarks about the summit, and for addressing the evidence.
I left a comment on Carla’s article that if one needed evidence that there’s a problem, the plethora of guys insisting that there wouldn’t be a problem if women would stop whining and “grow a pair” should, I think, suffice.
It’s interesting to me how this issue seems to crystallize the various knee-jerkers. I see two things turned up by the FLOSSPOLS study:
1. The level of participation by women in FLOSS is an order of magnitude lower than in proprietary software development.
2. When asked if they were aware of sexism in the community, 80% of men stated that they weren’t and 80% of the women stated that they were.
Presumably, “the Beez” won’t believe that there’s any connection between these two things until someone’s gone out and interviewed every single woman who hasn’t participated in a FLOSS project to find out why.
As for Mr. Varghese, I was impressed by his journalistic skills when, in response to my pointing out to him that he’d gotten my credentials all wrong, something he could have avoided by reading the profile on my blog, and suggested some “research” might be in order if he wished to characterize himself as a “journalist”, he went off on a tirade about how I was attempting to “enslave” him because of the color of his skin.
The simple fact is that the folks who are insisting that there’s no problem (in the face of numerous incidents, some of which Carla’s listed) are a big part of the problem.