You are correct. Every relationship is different, and every individual is different. But there are some generalities that can be made. For example, we are talking about men and women in programming. A great many of the men here are "pushing back," arguing for the purpose of keeping their territory.

Are ALL the men doing that? No, of course not. But there are forces at work here, there are real lives being lived here.

Intimacy is a mixed word, too. It can mean a lot of things. Here I am focusing on sexual intimacy -- I think this is where most ("a great many") men feel locked out.

And I will push it back further: Even men who are happily married -- even in relationships between men and women, where there is no plan to escalate to sex, -- there is still the push and pull of desire in (say) the workplace. There is an intimacy even in this field. Just because a man's sex life with his wife has dwindled to near nothing, and he has given up on sex with anyone else, -- it doesn't mean that there aren't feelings, and that these dynamics are alive and at work within him and her and the society.

I believe that sexual desire is like a nervous system within the social organism. It is always at play. When a group of men and women meet together for purpose A -- something like "making money together" (at a company,) or "going on a picnic" (at a gathering of friends) or "going to the movies" -- wherever there are men and women (or more generally: a "sexual landscape," to include the LGBTx,) -- there are always TWO channels. Channel "A" is the explicit, stated purpose, and then there is always, ALWAYS, Channel "B": the sexual nervous system. The networks of desire, shyness, bravado, temptation, hope, sadness, at play in the sexual realm.

I've gone a long way from your comment, but what I want to say is that "intimacy" is a large field. 2 people who don't even speak to each other, -- just see each other on the bus every now and then -- can (and often DO) have an intimate relationship. So that "intimacy" is vast.

And it's so obvious, right? Yes, you have translated well --

-- except for two things: 1. the judgement, one, and 2. -- (possibly) -- the shame.

There is a notion that men should be able to just "figure out" how to "get laid." That it's a man's job and duty to figure out how to fight the good fight to be smooth. That he needs to toughen up, and "just learn" somehow how to get women to want to have sex with him. Or perhaps it's impossible for him. Or perhaps he needs to learn how to dominate better.

There is nothing in such a man's life telling him that women do in fact already desire him. Rather, there is "faulting," that you have given an example of. Now he's a bad person, or a lazy person, because -- "hey, it's easy." But it's not easy to navigate sexual intimacy, and, further, -- he's not a bad person. He just isn't successful in love. The man and the woman haven't found out how to intimately relate, that's all.

It isn't a crime. And it also isn't his fault.

There are courses teaching men how to pick up. There is the pick-up artist scene, and on and on. There are people who will teach you how to play games. If you look at these courses though, ... You're going to find war, in the vast majority of cases. You are going to find war. It's like dropping your knife for an AK-47. You'll find success, of course. You can take out tons of people to look big, and win success. But the war does not change.

What we need to do, what I really believe we need to do, is to make a culture of love.

I cannot imagine that, if we had a culture of love between men and women, (and in all the sexual worlds, LGBTx,) that men would be trying to push women out of programming, trying to keep women out of programming.

That should be our objective. That should be what we are doing. That's how we can share programming, and every other field. Whether we are men or women, here is our hope.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to unpack some of the ideas.

"The Inside of the Home" and "The Outside of the Home." I am talking about the contemporary society, but also more broadly. Inside of the home is the space literally within the walls of a house or an apartment. Women tend to be the decorators, and in charge of the children, and in charge of care activities. I am not saying that this has to be the case; I am saying that that is how it tends to be in the majority of the cases in our society. Cooking, cleaning, household chores, childrearing, arranging doctor visits, and on and on. Also, interior decoration, arrangement, placements of objects, coordination of guests, and on and on. Even in dual income families, this is generally the pattern.

"Outside the home" refers to the political arena, the realm of work (in an office, in a quarry, at a factory, etc., etc.,.) Again, I am not saying that this is the required way things need to be. I am saying that this is how it tends to be.

The current fad of "man caves" -- or, homes within the home for men -- is a demonstration of this "Inside/Outside" division.

The "intimate violence" that men experience is the control that women hold over intimate relationships, by the withholding power of the "No." Men ask, women reject. The horrors of this were detailed by a woman named Norah Vincent who is a woman who lived as a man for a full year. She detailed exactly what it felt like to be approaching women as a man, and noted for the first time what it is like to be rejected as a man. Women frequently say, "I have been rejected, I know what it's like to be rejected; Man has nothing on me," -- but Norah Vincent actually knows that there is a difference between night and day between the two.

Women individually and collectively have the power to exclude and shame a man for his sexual advances, which he and he alone is required to make. How many tears have been shed by men because of the way that the sexual relationship plays out? This does not receive enough attention.

I am not saying that women are bad, any more than noble-minded feminists are saying that men are bed. I am saying that there is something needing analysis here, if we are going to truly understand what is going on in the relationships between men and women in -- and this is one offshoot -- in the programming battle as well.

Men know that they are at the mercy of women in the intimate sphere -- and they know where their powers are. Men know that their powers are in the programming sphere, in the trades sphere, in the political sphere, and on and on. Men do not want to disarm because women do not want to disarm.

I have already been called a misogynist, -- just for pointing out the game. The battle is alive and well.

Let's see; ... What else might be unclear, that *perhaps* I can give explain:

I said that "Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart." Here I am treating the home metaphorically -- but the message is very visceral and real. Men who love women but can never "make it work," or feel that they have to go through layers of game or interpretation or just giving up (humiliation) in order to "make it work" should be able to intuit what is going on, though. Men and women (heterosexual) have each other in a death-grip around the heart. We love one another, clearly, but we are in a war, we are in a battle. We need each other, and that need has become war.

Women can say "No," and hold themselves in reserve. Men can push her out or dominate her -- if not physically, then politically, economically, or "any means necessary," whether consciously or unconsciously. Of course, women can play the dominance game as well. But we all feel it. We know what is happening. We know when we are being pushed, and we know when we are pushing. At some level, we know.

My appeal is to people who dream for equality, true equality, and love, between men and women: To see the role that intimacy and romantic love play in this battle. I do not have a solution, but I don't need a solution. All I need is for you to *see this.*

Once you see this, you will be able to find out what to do, in your particular circumstances and more broadly. There will be nothing of coercion or force in the answer. Nobody needs to be forced to do anything that they don't want to do. You just need to be able to *see* this, and you just need to be able to hear the pain behind the arguing.

Misogyny? How so? I'm all in favor of women programming. I love women. I love programming. I want to share it with women. I believe in equality of the sexes. I support the grants.

There is no misogyny here; But I think I've touched a nerve...

Ask questions and help me draw it out. It's hard to explain ideas that are not common, and I could use some help.

I think that the way to understand the visceral reactions and willfully beligerant arguments on the behalf of so many men here, is to understand the intimate violence that men, and programmers in particular, have experienced at the hand of woman. I think that a lot of men intuit that their world is "outside" the home, and that women's world is "inside" the home. Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart. Since women say "no" to men's access to their own hearts space, their most intimate and sexual feelings, men feel that they have a right, and perhaps even a duty, to own the outer world.

To put it another way: If our culture was not sexually violent, if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space. But in a culture of sexual humiliation of men, there is no way that they are going to give up "their" territory.

detect_predator = (user_a.sex == "M" or user_b.sex == "M") and ((user_a.age=18) or (user_b.age>=18))

Boom! I win! Give me reward moneys.

You have a right to be forgotten; You do NOT have a right to make me forget!

Open culture is people who are hacking not just software, but also the society that we live in. There is a school of thought that what we are about is "just software." I have always believed that this is just as much about ideas that we live by, as it is about the software.

As for "what does OSS have to do with romance?" -- you've missed the context, I think. We were talking about women in open source software, and what it takes to create an environment that is safe for women in the Open Source Software world. That is the correct context, so then the question would be: "What does romance have to do with women in open source software?" And my response would be: "I think a lot."

Here's my explanation:

I have observed, both within myself and others, that there are a lot of (shall we say:) geeks and nerds in our group. Yes, there are a great many socially capable men who have lots of girlfriends and an abundance of romance in their lives. I observe that these programmers are *not* the ones who are making a hostile environment for women.

Where I see men making Open Source software unsafe or unattractive to women, I find men who have frustrations with women.

What are those frustrations about?

In my opinion, they are about sex and love and romance.

On the flip side, from the perspective of women: I have talked with women who have wanted to learn to program, who have felt an attraction to the field. "But when we ask the guys to help, they fall in love with us." These are words that I heard first from a woman's mouth. I would not have guessed, but it makes sense. "We just want to be friends, learn to program, and get good jobs."

Okay. "But don't you see that these boys, guys, and men that you want to learn from -- don't you realize that many of these men have gained what they have had, because they were wounded in love, and found refuge in programming?"

"Yes, but it's not my fault or responsibility."

"True, I agree; But you do need to understand the situation and move accordingly."

My belief is that love and sexual desire are the hidden nervous system that we never talk about. If you look underneath the resentments, I don't find "misandry" or "misogyny;" Rather, I find frustration in love and romance.

I'm much more interested in an Open Culture than I am in Open Source software -- and I *love* Open Source software.

I have seen (and been involved in) disputes over womens involvement in programming, Open Source culture, etc.,. I have to say: It gets really personal, really fast.

I don't think this is about "Woman good, man bad." I don't think this is even about "Woman good, some men bad."

We are not a culture that thinks much about love and romance -- we tend to retreat into talking about software.

But I think we really need to talk about love and romance.

We should have Watson fact-check Slashdot story submissions.

If you were born in the late 70's, are reading this article, and like fiction, consider reading Ready: Player One.

It's founded on the same premise -- video games become the metaverse. But what if that metaverse was written by Richard Garriott? And cost just one quarter to play? I read it, and just loved it. Even my 10 year old daughter loved it!

Reminds me of this YouTube video -- Eye-Tracking To Improve Camera Motion And Depth-Of-Field.

I can see the limitations in a theater -- only one setting can be used by all people. But in a single person's experience, it has been made to work -- you can focus dynamically based on what the person is looking at.

del.icio.us is one of the best research tools on the Internet, -- especially for keeping abreast of innovations in the programming world.

It works like this:

You're working on text processing in Python, or something. So you search delicious for "python" and "textprocessing."

You go through the results, most of which are fairly generic.

But when you find something interesting -- you don't stop there: You ask, "Who was this person who thought this was interesting?"

Then you look at *that person's* tags under "Python". Do they look interesting? That is: Is this person looking for things that are interesting and relevant to you? They aren't bookmarking the ordinary mainstream things, that is.

Then you add that person to your *network.* Get a group of about 10 interesting individuals into the network.

Then search for "python" and "python textprocessing" in that network -- and now you start to get very, very interesting results, consistently.

Yes, but have you forgotten Isaac Asimov's corollary?

"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right".