Actually, Peter Pan did go on past Wendy & Co. going home. Wendy did return for some spring cleanings, but Peter, just being a boy, eventually forgot and Wendy grew old, too old to fly. She had a daughter and when Peter eventually remembered to come again to the Darlings, he confused the girl for Wendy. Wendy graciously allowed the daughter to visit Peter for spring cleaning...

I'd argue that a Peter Pan/Calvin and Hobbes comparison is more apt than the GP intended, as both really allow for differing perspectives as the reader ages. As many have commented in this thread, it's possible to read Calvin and Hobbes as a child (as I did) and say, "Oh, wow! What a fun, silly comic!" It's also possible to (re)read it as an adult (I'm not yet there, but sooner than I'd like) and say "Yeah, that's what my kid is like. And that's how childhood felt, even if I see things a bit differently now... (Also, wow. What a fun, silly comic.)"

For Peter Pan, it's a story that appeals to children because the characters go have adventures and still return home safely. For parents (or older readers), it's all that and a story about how childhood ends and children always do have to grow up. I don't have kids, but I cried the first time I read Peter Pan, at 23, because it's a fun adventure story and a really bittersweet and poignant look at the cycle of childhood into adulthood.

I'd contrast Calvin and Hobbes or Peter Pan with something like Fox Trot or Harry Potter. Both Fox Trot and Harry Potter are fun, and both offer something for multiple age levels. I'd even say both stand rereadings (to greater or lesser degrees). But I'd argue that neither have the same depth or subtlety that Calvin and Hobbes or Peter Pan do; neither allow for such drastically differing perspectives when read as a child or as an adult.

Just my two cents as a performer who thinks way too much about the power of narrative and story...

-Trillian

Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".

Without being sarcastic, some of us are concerned about having their small penis put up for display. This will inevitably be TMI, but I know I'm not the only trans woman who reads Slashdot, and presenting and being perceived as a woman but smuggling a dick through security runs the risk of harassment (if you're lucky) and arrest/sexual assault/murder (if you're not).

I'm all for safe air travel, but I can see a million ways to abuse this technology, and use it to harass and humiliate people who aren't terrorists for every one way it can be used to "fight terrorism."

I'm embarrassed that I haven't played WoW in...how long has it been? Four years. I haven't played WoW in four years and I still understood all that...

I really appreciate hearing someone who acknowledges some of Israels faults while still seeming to be in favor of the country. (Usually, the loudest participants in any discussion fall into "Israel is evil and bad" or "Israel is blameless and good.") That said...

Things must be considered in comparison to the norms of those days, as you don't judge your founding fathers for denying other people their rights (slaves). In the forties transfer solutions in an attempt to create countries of a single nation were common and accepted. In Europe you can look at the way Poland and Czechoslovakia treated their German citizens, in Asia you can look at India and Pakistan.

I'm not sure I agree. I think you should definitely keep in mind the norms of the day, celebrating what the US Founding Fathers did right, for example. But I don't think that gives them an excuse or an out for doing things we now consider really reprehensible (keeping slaves, not considering that women might like to vote, too, etc).

I don't think this should be used as an excuse to villainize Israel. But I also don't think the norms of the 40s and 50s should excuse the really problematic things Israel and the UN did, either.

Thanks for the reply. I think our disagreement stems in large part from trying to find the balance between acknowledging and accepting general statistical differences and encouraging any individual to reach their full potential. As such, when you say...

Yes, some of the more outrageous claims that boys and girls are just alike, and that they can do exactly the same things, yada yada yada are getting discredited. Finally. I've been hearing that trash for decades.

...I'm worried you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because it is possible that any particular girl can be just as smart/strong/tall/whatever as an particular boy. How do we, as a society, respect that? To not make outliers of either gender feel like freaks for being taller than women "should" be or short than men "should" be?

On the issue of homosexuality (which I readily acknowledge I introduced to the discussion) I'm not sure what you mean by "Homosexuality is a dead end." I assume you mean that, genetically, homosexuality does not contribute to the propagation of the species, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Assuming that is your position, though, my response is a resounding "So what?"

No one is encouraging children to be homosexual. What is happening is that some (myself included) are promoting a viewpoint that homosexuality is no worse than heterosexuality, meaning people who are gay anyway should be just as respected members of society as people who are not.

Obviously, I'm in the 'homosexuality is not a choice' camp, but my position wouldn't change if it were definitively proven that it were a choice.

As to declining fertility rates, I won't pretend they aren't happening (Google's public data gathering has great graphs) but it corresponds pretty well with inflation adjusted minimum wage, too... I'm not arguing the two have anything to do with each other, but it seems just as likely as the specter of gay marriage.

I actually don't entirely disagree with your post, but feel the need to object to a few key points. First, something I do agree with:

No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women, it remains a fallacy.

Quite honestly, I agree: Looking at a broad, statistical picture, men and women tend to be different.

Where I strongly object is moving from there to saying that every individual man and woman should conform to those gender roles; shouldn't be allowed to deviate from the statistical average.

Gender roles? Since we've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles, I see nothing wrong with them. They work. They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.

Go ahead - mess with the roles, and teach the kids new ways. Tell the little girls that they don't have to be little girls, and little boys don't have to grow up to be men.

And yet, civilization itself is a glorious testament to the idea that we don't always need to fall into the instinctual patterns of behavior that served us so well on the savanna. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman choosing to stay home and raise the kids while her husband goes out and make money, there's nothing wrong with the reverse, either. (Or with a woman staying home while her wife goes out to earn money. Or both partners doing some share of child-raising and money-earning.)

The point of feminism is not to redefine what men and women are. It's to expand egalitarian ideals. That, maybe, when prejudging individuals based on race, or religion, height, disability, whatever is a poor way to run a society, that idea should also apply to prejudging men and women.

And while you're right, there are feminists who claim culture to be 100% responsible for gender differences, that brand of feminism is falling out of style with younger feminists. Because little girls don't have to grow up to be women, nor little boys men. Most will - almost all, certainly - and that's perfectly fine. But to encourage children to conform, to confine their horizons to what we're "evolved" to expect, seems tragic and an absolutely criminal way to raise a child.

Quite frankly, it's the same type of thinking that says boys should be out playing "healthy" sports, not inside playing fantasy make-believe with wizards and dragons. It's always easy to redefine what being a "real" man or woman means to suit an individual's values, which is why I so strongly believe that it's a dangerous road to travel to say girls need to be girls and boys need to be boys, end of story.

As we know, sex is dirty enough, but homosexuals and transsexuals are all disease-ridden, AIDS-infested, sex-crazed, godless, hedonistic, er..., I'm sure there are a few more words I could use along those lines

Fuck!! Why wasn't I provided with the handbook when I started on hormones?! And where are all these hedonistic, sex-crazed parties I'm supposed to be attending? I'm not opposed to hedonism or sex-craziness, mind you, but if I'm being obliged to live up to the standards set by my trans sisters and brothers, I'd like to know what I'm supposed to be doing.

You'd think with time for all the destruction of family values and breakdown of gender roles trans people seem to be doing, we could get our shit together for a nice handbook...

Again, if politics was dominated (90%) by women, how could it be "sexist" (and I'm not talking about sexist against males)?

I don't understand how this analogy is useful, because that's not the situation (in politics or FOSS). I'm not trying to be obtuse, and I would love to hear about what I'm not seeing, I just know I'm missing something.

There will ALWAYS be someone who is "sensitive" enough to be offended by SOMETHING. Why should that person be the determining factor for discussions?

You're right, there needs to be a middle ground between, at one extreme, always catering to the most sensitive and, at the other, never acknowledging any wrongdoing. I'm simply arguing that this discussion is tilting more toward the later end than the former, particularly since it's not just a single person pointing out a problem.

But if you were talking about your perceptions of the criminal behaviour of black men based upon your observation of one incident regarding one black man ... that would NOT be socially acceptable. You would be ostracized for your "racism".

You're right, and it took me a few minutes to figure out why this situation is different. (Beyond simply saying "But it feels different!") With the black community, to continue with your example, there are very public figures and a very significant segment of the community standing up and saying, "Yes, this is a serious issue. But we don't accept that stereotype, we don't agree with the behavior, and we're ultimately better than it." With this discussion of sexism, the response to accusations of wrongdoing is, "Nope. That isn't actually an issue. You're making a mountain out of a molehill."

And THAT is why I will always prefer statistics over perceptions/opinions.

I actually agree, I prefer statistics. But that doesn't mean I base my emotions on the pure, objective percentage or duration of catcalls directed at me, or the scientifict proportion of women I see in politics. Statistics are useful and important, yes, but I think it's unrealistic to call for all judgment of human behavior to become an exercise in mathematical functions.

Read the comments. No one is saying that those comments were NOT sexist. Almost everyone is saying that they WERE sexist.

I haven't run the percentages, but I didn't see anything close to an overwhelming agreement that the comments were sexist. It may be that I'm just wrong (I'm rereading much of this discussion right now), in which case I'm sorry that I made snap judgment.

-Trillian

Half of the problems with the feminist movement are the extremists that call absolutely everything sexist..

I actually agree with you here, that extremists (often second-wave feminists) have given the feminist movement as a whole a bad name by overusing the cry of "Sexism!" It sounds like we'd probably disagree on where it should be used, but I don't - in general - disagree that it's used too much.

...because of that people are desensitized when someone calls something sexist, only concrete examples which people can analyze for themselves as sexist will prove to them that it actually went on.

I wish I could agree with you there, but (as I said elsewhere in this thread) sexism/racism/____ism, and offense in general, is in the eye of the beholder. I guess I'm not sure how to find a middle ground between the desire for "concrete examples which people can analyze for themselves" and incidents that feel ______ist to the person on the receiving end, even if the one committing it doesn't agree.

-Trillian

If you percieve the whole groups sexist because of one person you gonna have a very hard life ahead of you, because I can hardly think of a single professional group from catholic nuns to nuclear physisists who don't have that 1 sexist person.

As I said, the issue isn't when there is a single sexist (racist, whateverist) person in a group. Rather, it's when the rest of the group doesn't make clear that - as a whole - they don't tolerate that type of behavior.

It seems that there's a bit of that going on both sides - try posting on a feminist blog and disagreeing with the author as a man. Even money you get deleted.

Oh, no argument here. I'm not claiming that feminists are immune from the desire to never see themselves as wrong. (Although I think you're reading the wrong feminist blogs if they're simply deleting respectful disagreement!) But the wrongdoing of some feminists doesn't excuse the wrongdoing of some within the FOSS movement...

-Trillian

Thanks for replying. I'll try to clarify where I'm coming from. I said...

What I think you're overlooking, however, is that there isn't a threshold for sexism. Sexism is an issue of perception, not of percentages.

And you replied...

No. I cannot agree with that. Perceptions can be wrong. Perceptions are OFTEN wrong.

Well, yes and no. Perceptions can be, and often are, wrong. I agree with you there. But I don't agree that there is a percentage threshold for sexism, or that there's a litmus test to determine when a group is (whatever)ist. I guess what I'm saying is that offense is in the eye of the beholder. As I said in another comment, the fact that most (all?) of the examples of FOSS sexism weren't intended to be sexist and offensive doesn't make them not sexist and offensive. It certainly changes how the people saying them should be viewed, but it doesn't simply excuse their actions.

It seems that you have the two items backwards. A field where the "vast majority" is not sexist is not the same as a "sexist field" where there are a few females.

You're right, I was vague. Let me try to rephrase what I meant.

I'm coming from the perspective that if a certain group makes me feel consistently uncomfortable or offended as a woman (and not simply like they're all jerks to everyone), that group is going to be perceived by me to be sexist.

The way I'm describing it, you're right: a few bad apples can definitely spoil my subjective perception of the whole bunch. But, if that perspective is wrong, I'd hope that the group would reject the views of the ones who actually were sexist, rather than saying, "Nope, no sexism here, don't know what you're talking about." That's what seems to be happening in this discussion, which is why I (perhaps prematurely) was indicating that the FOSS movement felt, to me, to be generally sexist as a whole. Not that every individual was sexist, or even the majority, but that the vibe I'm getting isn't willing to acknowledge sexism.

I said...

I don't shun or reject friends, family, coworkers, whomever, simply because they carelessly said something hurtful or offensive. But if they A) don't acknowledge what they said is problematic and B) refuse to apologize, I eventually will decide to remove myself from situations where I have to interact with them.

And you replied...

Who is "them" in this case?

"Them" is the individuals and, in a group situation, the group as a whole. That's what the issue ultimately seems to be in this discussion. That people from the FOSS movement were making sexist remarks and didn't apologize, and then the FOSS movement - defined subjectively as people who seem to care about FOSS stuff enough to comment on this issue - also don't seem to acknowledge the sexism that was/is occurring.

post on /. and I have been called all kinds of names for my opinions. So? That's life on the Internet. You can avoid it or you can recognize that there will always be idiots in the world.

Except these weren't simply comments on the Internet, they were leaders on the FOSS community making public statements. And, as I said in another comment, simply because people are jerks doesn't mean that we shouldn't call them out on their bullshit when it happens.

If 9,999 people on a FOSS project are not sexist ... but 1 person is ... how does that 1 person contaminate the other 9,999?

When the other 9,999 don't acknowledge or reject the sexism of the 1.

-Trillian

Thanks for the reply. I agree with some of what you're saying, but I think we take different conclusions from the same situation.

Having people offend you and then refuse to apologize or even accept they did anything wrong is maddeningly frustrating. It's frustrating for men, women, whites, Hispanics, blacks; everyone. People sometimes disagree that they wronged you, and they won't apologize if they do. This is part of the human condition.

What you're saying is manifestly true, and I completely agree: Everyone has experience with people being mean, rude, offensive, and generally jerks. And being offended is not a "minority" issue, limited to women/blacks/gays/whomever; someone being mean or offensive doesn't automatically make the issue race/sex/religion/etc-ism. It's possible to be mean or rude to a woman without being sexist - that person could just be an asshole.

So, I'm going to have to say that the world is not going to change here and that you just need to accept this fact of life. It's not sexism, just a symptom of the fact that people suck.

That's where I disagree.

First, I disagree that the world isn't going to change. Maybe I'm a naive optimist, but when I see a country having gone from slavery and women being unable to vote to having a woman and a black man as serious contenders for the presidency, I do think that indicates some change is possible. (And I'm not trying to debate whether those politicians were/are good or bad at their jobs, or have good/bad policies, or whether we've "solved" racism or sexism. I'm just noting that - once upon a time - one of them wouldn't have been able to vote, while the other could have actually been enslaved, and neither of those things are true anymore.) Likewise, when we've gone from having homosexuality being outlawed to having gay marriage as a national topic of conversation, I call that change.

But those are all big, national changes. They aren't necessarily changes reflected in individual interaction. So, moving back to the much smaller scale that this conversation has been about, I think it's possible and desirable to encourage people not to be jerks quite so much. You're right, this isn't an issue limited to a single race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, whatever. But I don't understand why, if a certain type of comment or interaction hurts me, the response to my pain should be, "You just need to accept this fact of life."

Yes, it's important to pick your battles. Yes, it's important to keep perspective. If I took every little negative interaction as The Most Important Thing Ever, I'd go crazy, I'd never leave my apartment. But I absolutely and categorically disagree that, simply because people are often mean to each other, it's acceptable to stay quiet in the face of meanness. That it's not worth encouraging people to be nicer to each other, just for the sake of being nicer.

As for your last sentence, "It's not sexism, just a symptom of the fact that people suck," I disagree here as well.

I don't think sexism and sucking are mutually exclusive: It's both sexism and a symptom of the fact that people suck.

Again, I agree that not every negative interaction with a minority or oppressed group automatically means ______ism toward that group. But that also doesn't mean that none of the interactions are _______ist.

-Trillian

PS - For clarification, and to correct something from my above post, I don't know enough about the FOSS movement to say, "It's sexist." I shouldn't have uniformly referred to "the FOSS movement," because I'm painting with a broader brush than I really have knowledge to do fairly. But I do think the comments and examples linked to throughout this discussion, and the original articles, indicate that some people within the FOSS display sexist behavior, and the movement as a whole doesn't seem to be - as far as I can see - willing to acknowledge that.

So if only 1.5% of developers are women ... but fewer than 0.1% of comments on development mailing lists are sexist ... what is the real "problem" that exists?

I'm not going to argue with the idea that only 0.1% of comments in the FOSS movement are sexist, because you're probably right: the vast majority of interaction and discussion in the FOSS is not sexist. What I think you're overlooking, however, is that there isn't a threshold for sexism. Sexism is an issue of perception, not of percentages. For example, simply because we have female politicians doesn't mean that politics isn't also a sexist field.

The problem trying to be solved is the feeling of exclusion by some women from the FOSS movement. For example, I'm having difficulty finding apologies for the examples of sexism people are linking to. That's not an issue of numbers, but an issue of perception. It tells me, a woman, that people in the FOSS will make mistakes. But everyone makes mistakes - that's not a deal-breaker. But it also tells me that members of the FOSS movement will be reluctant to apologize for their mistakes, and that can become a deal-breaker.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think those standards are unreasonable. I don't shun or reject friends, family, coworkers, whomever, simply because they carelessly said something hurtful or offensive. But if they A) don't acknowledge what they said is problematic and B) refuse to apologize, I eventually will decide to remove myself from situations where I have to interact with them. That's what the issue seems to be here. Not merely that FOSS has issues with sexist jokes - western culture has an issue with sexist jokes - but that a movement which, to me, has connected itself with ideals of rights and equality isn't able or willing to apologize about them.

-Trillian

Teaching unbalanced and hysterical lessons to young children, who do not have BS filters in place, is as far as I've seen, universally harmful.

I 100% agree with that statement, and it's possible some kids were exposed to drug education (to use your example) earlier than I was. But, having gone through DARE in 4th grade (so, about 9 or 10) I came out with an absolute hatred of drug education. And - although the plural of anecdote is not data - I have yet to meet someone who went through DARE and feels differently. And everyone seems to agree DARE doesn't do much[1]. Now, this isn't to counter your main point, that children are impressionable and what they're taught should be carefully constructed - but drug education doesn't seem like a good specific example.

-Trillian

[1] - Source