Slashdot Mirror
The Rise Of The Chickclickers
There are few reliable numbers on Net use by gender, but one high-tech Wall Street analyst says his firm's research suggests that the majority of Web users -- possibly as high as 60% -- are now female. And younger women, especially those between 13 and 30, are the fastest growing single demographic online.
"Five years ago, there were not that many women on the Internet," Carol Kovac, a vice president at the Watson Research Center at I.B.M. told the New York Times recently. "Today, we're on there and using it for everyday things."
Contrary to any lingering stereotypes, they aren't the least bit wary either of embracing technology or going online. They have adopted the Web enthusiastically, discovering new ways to use it, giving the lie to the notion that the Net is a male playground, or that it primarily isolates people. Says one Web developer, these young women finally have their own medium. With e-mail, AIM, Web sites, and mailings, they're no longer dependent on the goodwill of parents and teachers for the tools to connect with. In many ways, they're creating a different kind of medium -- communicative, community-centered,culture-driven. Beyond the wildest dreams of any slick and usually dumb women's mag, they define their own agenda.
Along with the spread of the open source ethic and the free music and culture battles, the geek girls -- or Chickclickers as some dub themselves, are perhaps the single most important social phenomenon online. And online, they make different choices than men.
"We are everyplace now," e-mails Roz67, "and in rapidly growing numbers. And we are different from guys. We don't need to prove our technical savvy, though we have enough of it. And we don't need to prove our feminism either. We are just thrilled to find one another and to talk about the things WE want to talk about."
Some of these women appear to embrace a new political value system. They are post-feminists who take their equality for granted and don't make it a central issue in their online lives. Via the Web, they are creating new media that don't patronize or dismiss them, treat them as stupid twits, or focus obsessively on the stereotypical female images that have defined traditional media for decades. Their Web sites reject the idea that women are only interested in men, apparel, cosmetics and recipes.
Heather Irwin, creative director of Chickclick (a highly navigable, user-friendly and colorfully-designed site) and a former Hotwired editor, says her site's research indicates that the heart of the female movement online is the 13-30-year-olds. They're smart and they're "using the Net for community, for research, for job hunting and for networking." Offline, Chickclick has noticed, there is a huge surge in these same women reaching out to one another to talk and meet.
"The 13-17 year olds are going to be a major force of their own as they reach adulthood and they seem to have an amazing feeling of sisterhood for each other," Irwin predicts. Although young men often behave differently online than their female counterparts, the same age group is a huge part of sites like this one (Slashdot) and also sees itself as belonging to a new kind of community.
The rise of the Chickclickers is significant on several levels. Anyone who doubts that men and women often make distinct technology choices online ought to visit Chickclick and the many "sister sites" that are linked to the top of its homepage.
It's clear on the younger women's sites -- chickclick, bolt.com, gamegal.com, Teenpeople.com (and sites like Mode, Jane and Jump, one of the first-ever sports sites aimed at young women) -- that there are radical differences from male-dominated sites. And they are markedly less hostile. They use technology to form community, yet the mechanics of the technology are subordinate to what the technology permits them to do. These sites are also distinctly different from Web sites aimed at older women, like oxygen.com and women.com. The latter are less political, and focus less on pop culture, more on so-called "traditional" women's interests -- food, fashion, lifestyle.
"I guess a lot of [us] don't care about the programming code any more than we need to see the insides of the TV before we use it," said Ginger, posting from ROCKRGRL.com, a Chickclick sister site. "The technology is important because it enables us to be here. But I don't care all that deeply how it really works."
In chat rooms and forums that are more personal and less combative than many public sites on the Web, the discussions and threads go on for weeks, even months. Almost all these younger sites link intensely to other sites. Although sites like Chickclick do include stories on cosmetics and appearance, it's often with a political edge -- sniping at the stick women on TV and in glossy magazines, and trading high-school horror stories.
Chickclick's news service Shewired bristles with attitude as well as information: stories on women-owned techno-businesses, female cops, politicians and mass murderers. And artists and performers -- one thing these sites do have in common with more male-oriented geek and nerd sites is an obsessive love of pop culture. Chickclick is crammed with TV stories, movie chats and music-sharing discussions. The site is colorful, smart, newsy and centered around conversations, both one-on-one and many-to-many.
These Chickclicker sites reinforce what has always been the great potential of the Net and the Web -- building new kinds of communities, not hustling dog food and stock tips. The disparities aren't really that surprising. Men and women have completely different histories online, as well as different instincts about using the network. The Net was built and designed almost exclusively by men, since the institutions responsible for its creation and development -- government, defense, engineering and academe -- were overwhelmingly male.
Now, younger men online are interested in techology -- programming, software and hardware, among other things. Women are also interested in Net-offshoots like gaming, but seem more interested in using the Net to find other women, to have some say in issues they care about, something often lacking in their offline lives.
Of course, men and women are often misleadingly stereotyped as well as uncommunicative, hostile and unsupportive of one another. But men do also connect socially online, sometimes through mailing lists, chat rooms and messaging systems, music-trading sites, but also sometimes via prolonged and intense collaborative involvement designing software and writing code,and gaming. The communication appears more indirect, even disguised. But despite alarms from researchers, politicians and the media about the Net-promoted loneliness, most people go online to connect in one way or another, not to stay apart.
Is online gender segregation inevitable? For the short run, almost certainly. But a Web site that focused on technology along with social and cultural issues and which offered humane and rational chat forums might fuse the two cultures. And it would be a hell of a Web site. Attitudinally, there is lots of common ground between Chickclickers and their male counterparts. Both relish the free atmosphere online, and chafe at the restrictive environments of many schools.
Gender aside, as online communities evolve, it isn't clear whether they will inevitably fuse or remain distinct. "The Net is not going to transform the world immediately into a unified place," writes Mark Stefik of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in his new book The Internet Edge. "We have many differences in our cultures and values. ... Embracing too much at once is overwhelming."
But some similarities stand out. "High school is hell for us as it is for smart guys," Donna posted on a Chickclick sister site called http:www.smileandactnice.com. "And the Net is a godsend. We can find each other, talk to each other and give real support and useful information. We trade information about boys, education, colleges, sometimes even jobs. It's very powerful out there. We find the kinds of communities we often don't have in our schools and towns. "She and many of her friends visited established Web sites at first, Donna said, most of them dominated by men. They found the environment useful, "but there is just too much hostility and posturing." And she added, she and many of her friends like to use technology, but don't want to know as many details about it as some men.
"It's been my experience that these young women, to a much greater degree than their male counterparts, are willing to put a vast amount of personal information out about themselves, are willing to connect with others and want to talk about their lives and experiences online," one female Web editor reports. "They form amazing cliques just like in real life. They create alter egos, fantasy stories about themselves and their friends, share photos, swap stories, etc., and they actually form very strong friendships and bonds that often extend into the real world. I think that for a lot of young girls, using the computer is no longer a 'geek' thing to do."
Clearly not. Both genders transcend concerns about geekness.' Now that everybody's grandma is online, along with teachers, stockbrokers and priests, going online is considered less of a 'geeky' experience all the time.
The personality and diversity of expression on sites like Chickclick is astonishing sometimes, a precedent set by landmark sites like Riotgrrls.com Chickclickers tear into Dr. Laura, the homophobic talk show host. In the ChickLounge, they talk about work and self-worth and popularity, dissect the curious role of the supermodel and Hollywood's white-trash obsession, deplore fashion victims and argue about whether parents should encourage children to compete in beauty pageants.
Online, women don't have to hide their brains the way they often do in school, e-mailed a teacher named Grace (Two years ago, I rarely got e-mail from women. Now it's more than 30%). "It's just like being a student. The isolation, the need to hide your intelligence," she says. "I don't want to sit in any more lecture halls projecting phony deference for authority and fake tolerance for my pseudo-peers." Online, she says, she doesn't have to.
As Grace shows, the female rush online is by no means limited to teens. "It wasn't until my late 20s (I am 37 now) when I sat down in front of a computer and logged onto the Net for the first time that suddenly, everything changed," e-mails Melissa. There were thousands of 'me's out there. All trolling the lines of cyberspace for others of the same ilk. I discovered IRC and mailing lists. I instantaneously went from a lost soul to one with a community. I made friends all over the world. I met people I never would have met had I not logged on. And I was communicating constantly."
Lynn Weinberger points out that it's still often difficult for young women to show open interest in science and technology, especially in middle and high schools. "I was unusual for a girl," she was constantly being told, particularly in the seventh and eighth grades, when boys and girls started paying more attention to one another. "I was the nerd with the long hair. I kept to myself and learned as much as I could about the new MacIntosh computers." Weinberger was, according to her teachers, "too quiet ... but it is hard to talk when nobody cares what you have to say, and when every time you open your mouth to speak you are ridiculed by everybody, teachers and students."
Today, she writes, "I hope that people accept me for who I am. I am a female geek, which makes me different. But so what? It makes me all the more unique. This is who I am, and I am finally at 22 years old proud of that. I do not hide myself in silence any more. Yet I can make a bold statement like that and then walk down the street looking at all the people with more popular lives and hipper clothes than me and still feel envy. I will always fight this.'
So do many older women, who are also online in increasing numbers. The Institute for Women and Technology, located at Stanford University, links to scores of sites serving women in engineering and other technological and scientific fields. Femina.com is a collection of women-oriented Web sites, as is Womenconnect.com. But the Chickclickers don't need help navigating the Web. They appear completely at home online, and most have been using computers since primary school. As much as parents cluck about obsessive online use, it seems the Net can be a profoundly empowering tool.
The rise of the Chickclickers may be, along with the open source movement, one of the most far-reaching evolutions in the history of the Net. Because women are drawn to communities and to connection, they may be more likely to involve themselves in politics, or provide standing targets for advertisers. It's surely easier to reach large numbers of them. Their sites offer more potential for continuing conversations about technology, politics, culture and other issues, since there is less flaming and other forms of hostility to get past.
And since women are also pouring into sub-specialties like Web creation and design, they're likely to have considerable impact on all kinds of sites and Net communities. "Perhaps because they had some catching up to do, women have a particular sensitivity to the plight of the people using and navigating the Net and the Web. They are clearly designed and make it easy to ask questions and -- here's something -- get real answers," says Kate, a San Francisco freelance Web consultant. "Their influence is to make the Web more coherent and user-friendly, something male designers were a bit slower to do."
The open-source movement has turned out to be one of the most interesting and significant social movements emerging from the Net. Leapfrogging past its many implications for technology itself, OSS is challenging one mainstream institution after another -- the entertainment industry, education, politics, media -- to pull back the curtains, and topple the barriers between individuals and the information they want and need.
The Chickclickers may ultimately be just as important, as they are building enduring communities that look as if they will last. If the current patterns continue, they'll quickly become one of the biggest subcultures online. They share common sensibilities about politics, culture and technology. They intuitively grasp the Net's landmark potential: to connect people and information in ways never before possible.
It's Jon Katz, so he meant to type "The rise from Chickenlickers." Man, Katz is getting pretty sick if he's getting hard-ons from licking chickens.
There are some problems with this analysis. 13-30 is pretty damn wide demographic. 17 years wide, in fact. At one end there are pubescent girls downloading pics of Leonardo Dicaprio, at the other, management and executives. This is hardly a unimodal phenomenon.
Why is anyone surprised that women would use the internet? Are they too dumb? Is it a "no gurlz alloud" treehouse? I think the media, Katz included, is digging for a story that just doesn't exist. Yup, those 13-30 year olds, they're really up to something. Probably the exact same thing as all those 13-30yr old boys. (or is that 30 going on 13?). News at 11.
Just imagine it, you'd be able to customize your own set of boobies!
I'm a chickclicker, although I am partially ashamed to admit it. I am a part of the community of chickclick.com, although I would rather call myself an "estronetter" after one site, EstroNet (now called EstroClick) which was taken over by chickclick in Sept. of 99. As a part of Estronet/click I spent most of my time on the UBB boards before they merged w/ chickclick & shewire. After the merge, everything became terribly fluffy and braindead. Most of the intelligent older members left (what we like to call, the mass exodus) and continued on to she-wire.com a member made women's community. Where there once was intelligent conversation about abortion, gun control, and legislature, now stood threads about the backstreet boys and bra strap headbands. Before, the demographic was 20 and up, and now it is 13-30, although the 13 year olds greatly out number the 30 years. Chickclick has targetted the younger generation to sell their over priced crap from their "chickshops" and to get little teenyboppers to click on their abnoxious links. I am a chickclicker, but I'm not proud of it. With the recent change of bulletin board software, I find myself wondering if I should stay or not.
"ChickClickers" is taken from "ChickClick.com", a site made by a woman FOR women. So, to all of those offended by someone iterating the mere NAME of a site... get a job, monkey boy! (and/or girl)
I am now adopting the term "SLASHERS" as a reference to those who post on slashdot.org.
- Mike G
Certainly better than Chicks with Clicks
I think that the article was all of the following:
:o)
much longer than necessary
less accurate than the equivalent on geekgrrl.com.au
doesn't really make a point
too politically correct to say the truth
a weak attempt to try and arouse female interest in slashdot
Why is everyone afraid to say the truth about the two sexes and how they use the Net and what they actually know.
I do not believe the the most technical inept person in the world is necessarily a man, it may be a woman. But here is the truth, men "tend" to be more technically savvy than woman and men "tend" to understand the technology better. There, I was not afraid to say it.
I disagree with this statement "They may have equal skills, but they choose to do very different things." I believe this to be weak and politically chicken.
I think women are awesomely important and valuable to technology, but they are simply not the builders of technology, or they tend not to be with a few phenomenal exceptions. I have the deepest respect for those females that are true hackers, but I think that is about 2%.
There is definitely more female interest in chat mediums such as IRC and the less intellectual ICQ network. I have met in person several females from IRC and I learned that in each case their use of a PC was much the same. They could turn it on and load mIRC... they didn't know a gigabyte from a nano-bot but they loved to use IRC.
The exceptions exist, such as my wife who can successfully recompile her linux kernel without my intervention and was doing so before I even knew her. To these phenomenal geekgirls I admire and hold in high regards. Unfortunately, and I will say it again, they are in the minority and most "chickclickers" if you will, are simply technical enough to turn on the PC and start MSIE to surf the web.
I too am a chicken in that I hope my wife never reads this or I will be verbally flamed for the next few weeks
-Roach
I got on the net in the early nineties, before people were "surfing". Sure there were less people on at the time, but in irc chatrooms and elsewhere women were pretty rare back then, nowadays it way more equal proportions. Hehe, plus nowadays women don't turn around and run when you say "I study comp...", computers aren't much more geeky than a toaster nowadays. People aged 50+ may use the net, but they sure don't seem to use it much for chatting with others or making homepages full of animated gifs at least.
ahha yea everyone knows someone like that. it never works, either. such is the life of a pansy, i guess.
apparently they're not.
Wow, what a great new term! Short, non-offensive, descriptive, not overly corny... I'll try to use use it in conversation at least 3 times today.
Actually, am I one of these? I've been clicking on pictures of chicks for a good 7 years now.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
You know, the more I hear people talking about these intellectual demographics the more I'm starting to think that rather then being two sides of the same coin that there is something fundementally different between genders. WTF? Ever met a boy who grew up in a family with 4 older sisters? A girl who grew up in a family with 4 older brothers?
Don't blur form with content dammit!
> know any female Linux Pros...I do know a few Female Solaris Pros
Now that you mention it, root@cs.dal.ca, my school's sysadmin, is a woman. (and she does a great job :) OTOH, there seem to be very few women in the local linux users group. I'm not female, so I don't know, but it seems to me that most women are happier to use what works, instead of going out of their way to change things if they don't have to to get their work done. I'm exactly the opposite of that. I spend hours tweaking things, writing programs, and stuff like that. Linux has reached a point where it is good enough that it can get the job done out of the box, without a lot of effort tweaking it (especially if a kindly guru helps with install-time decisions and choosing software packages.) This may be why more women are using Linux than previously. So, ladies of linux, am I anywhere near the mark on this? I'm not saying that women are usually too dumb to change things to their liking, but they do _typically_ seem to be more willing to use what they have, unlike chronic malcontents such as myself who like to do things the best way possible (like taking the time to install putty on a lab computer to ssh into the server on the same campus), even if it takes longer than the simpler, but non-optimal solution of using telnet (which everyone else is doing).
Maybe the ssh thing is a bad example, because anyone concerned about security would do the same. Keep in mind that I don't care too much about that account, since I don't keep stuff I care about on there. I do keep that stuff on my home linux box. A whole bunch of other people use telnet, so I wouldn't be opening up the server to more attack than already done by the guy next to me using telnet to the same machine.
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
>When I told her I was having DSL installed she
>started drooling.
Bandwidth as an attractant... maybe I should print off some bumper stickers. "I've got broadband and no current girlfriend. Want the job?"
He can't knock it off. His writing style is to find something "new" whether it is a sub-culture, a technology, or an organizational technique, talk about it, then proceed to tell us how it will "change the world" and make everything obsolete. This is how he thinks.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the whinges of uncontrollable pettifoggers, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant grievances. Just to add a little more perspective, Jon might doctor evidence and classification systems and make blathering generalizations to support stupid, preconceived views faster than you can say "mechanicocorpuscular". What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? A trip to your local library would reveal that he has been known to say that voluble rabid deviants are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. That notion is so ultra-counter-productive, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.
In retrospect, Jon has always been more insensitive than most empty-headed prevaricators. He believes that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. That's just wrong. He further believes that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. Wrong again!
He can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook, but his epigrams always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that all literature which opposes extremism was forged by pestilential morons. I just want to say that Jon has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, unless we bring the communion of knowledge to all of us, no real changes will ever occur. That's the sort of statement that some people believe is callow, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because I should note that it's scary curmudgeons like him that give me reason to drop to my knees and beg for mercy. We can therefore extrapolate that as that last sentence suggests, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, if I didn't sincerely believe that he is chomping at the bit for a chance to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Jon's jibes are intellectually and morally indefensible. This applies first and foremost to a group under whose negligent brand of cameralism the whole of honest humanity is suffering: sullen deluded know-nothings. Jon wants to take over the world, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. The same holds true for phlegmatic doctrinaire cult leaders.
To put a little finer edge on the concept, I must ask that his cronies renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that weaken the critical links in his nexus of rotten frotteurism. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. He is typical of disorderly mystics in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his manuscripts. Jon's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g. that what I call neo-insecure hackers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.
Others may disagree, but I contend that Jon teaches workshops on solipsism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. It may not seem to be very important right now, but given a choice of having him lure the recalcitrant into his camp or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Call me old-fashioned, but we can divide Jon's nostrums into three categories: contumelious, antihumanist, and despicable. I don't just maintain that Jon's lackeys must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk; I can back that up with facts. For instance, Jon's beliefs are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the feral ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.
I, for one, am tired of hearing or reading that lawless pissants and uncivilized paranoiacs should rule this country. You know that that is simply not true. You know what I mean? Jon's obtuse egocentric ideals use paid informants and provocateurs to elevate his announcements to prominence as epistemological principles. Jon then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
I'm merely suggesting that I myself unequivocally feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Jon obviously has none, or he wouldn't disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of Dadaism. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with dastardly jokers. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to force us to bow down low before the most dotty freeloaders I've ever seen. Prissy lummoxes don't think like you and me. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: The next time he decides to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that Jon has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his recommendations are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying".
Jon whines about impudent fault-finders, yet he enthusiastically supports the most destructive clowns I've ever seen. Who else but Jon would have the brass to tour the country promoting loathsome jingoism in lectures and radio talk show interviews? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if anyone calls him to account. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Jon is unreasonable must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Jon's henchmen must have spent the past month on Mars. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but he asserts that he has a "special" perspective on vandalism which carries with it a "special" right to cause riots in the streets. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie.
When we tease apart the associations necessary to his horny ribald criticisms, we see that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his theories. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if we let him win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats, then greed, corruption, and exhibitionism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Jon will hate me for saying this, but I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that disloyal morally crippled shirkers with stronger voices than minds would revert to disgusting behavior. But someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Jon is trying to do the same to us. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Jon Katz himself or one of his assistants, will write an intransigent piece about how utterly insidious I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
pronoblem
Second, women have been online for some time. You can't wire up 50% of this country and make it exclusively guys. Yes, I know the politically correct amongst us would have us believe that women are somehow "misrepresented", but it's a complete joke. Now, enough of the opinion, time for some empirical evidence..
The underlying crux of your article can best be summed up with my personal experience - all of my online (male) friends are out gaming online, participating in discussions like this, and communicating with new people all the time. However, all of my mom's friends are online. Women, it seems, carry the Real World into e-mail. Yes, there are some on IRC or here on slashdot, but most of them already have a large base of friends and simply use the internet as a new medium to carry the same message - the day to day chit-chat that they constantly are engaged in. I don't know of anyone of the opposite-sex who met someone online and decided to be friends. For whatever reason, that isn't happening often. But that's a topic of another Jon Katz article...
So yes, they're communicating. They're out there, and they very much are online. You're just not looking in the right places.
Me neither, but I don't fit the demographic anyway - I'm too old. I did find it insulting that older women are supposedly out there looking for knitting patterns. Personally I look for biotech and web building info. (Know anything about Zope?)
And no, K0ala, you're not the only one. Not all of us have obvious names.
I do have a very female nick here, but it's a personal joke among my friends. To do with anagrams and pretend superheros. Oh, it would take too long to explain and it doesn't matter.
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
This really scares me: "Online, women don't have to hide their brains the way they often do in school"
As a geek guy, I search high and low for a girlfriend with a brain. Unfortunately I end up writing off most girls within five minutes of meeting them. It really scares me that girls feel the need to hide their intelligence. Please Stop! I am sick to hell of shallow plastic girls!
Then again...if these girls are after shallow plastic guys, then by all means, continue.
I need moderator points. But absent them, let me cast out dittos. Jon, listen to this one.
What I'm trying to say is that whatever you choose to refer to yourself as is perfectly valid, and there should be no reason why YOU can't call yourself that, but no-one else can.
Looks like all those kiddieporn people on FreeNet are going to love this one. :)
Maybe this will correct some of the imbalance in net content.
And here you are reading the posts. Can you be anymore hypocritical?
Well this is great news for Patrick Naughton!...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Whenever he mentions "Geek Profiling", finish
the glass.
Whenever he mentions "Linux Geek Profiling by Post-Open Source Microsoft", finish the glass,
the six-pack, the keg, and/or the empties.
George Lee
>> With e-mail, AIM, Web sites, and mailings, they're no longer dependent on the goodwill of parents and teachers for the tools to connect with. <<
:-)
So there was nothing else before the Internet? No phones, no snail-mail? Did women even know how to speak before the Net?
Sounds like ChickLickers to me...
And yes, there is a rise....
heh
Blar.
Ack. Whenever I talk to a woman who knows about the subject at hand, she almost always runs circles around me. Makes me feel like an utter dumb twit. I guess they think different.
:-)
Of course, I do enjoy talking with someone who's smarter than me, because I learn a lot!
(guy here)
-lf
I agree that this article makes sweeping generalizations which are not entirely correct. However, in my experience, it seems that more women in the demographic described (ages 13 to 30) do fit Katz's description than not. A lot more.
The real flawed stereotype in this article is that of men, that they are geekhood-inclined. While it is undeniably true that nearly all men think the net was built to more effectively propagate photographs of nude women (and if they say otherwise you must understand that it is only out of consideration for the feelings of others), it is equally untrue that most men want to have the foggiest notion of how the computer works.
Men are foolish animals. They are not inherently geeks. Women are similar to men in this respect except they (thankfully) tend to be far more attractive... to me, anyway. ;-)
In other words, most men on the net are not geeks, just as most women on the net are not geeks.
However, I would also like to point out that I know a large number of women professionally who do not fit the Katz stereotype. This is because they are among the (unfortunately small) number of women who have had the decency to join the ranks of the engineering (software or hardware) instead of being steered by social prejudices into "softer" fields like education or law.
These women may be slightly likely to read slashdot, but on the average I would say they are as geeky as the men who are their colleagues. Geeks are geeks, regardless of gender. They are exceptions. That is why they are called "geeks" instead of being described as "cool".
(begins praying his ex-girlfriends never get on the internet)
BilldaCat
Normally I'm not bothered by Jon's stories (I even like some of them), but this one really hits a nerve.
First of all, I'm disgusted that anyone -- meaning Jon, and half the idiots who've replied to him -- would differentiate between "men" and "women" on anything other than a purely physical level. The only difference is, after all, physical. Anything else is either imagined, or a difference in personality. You can't say that a male is more likely to have X type of personality than a female, or it's unfair to everyone. Being a male, I would find it offensive, for instance, if somebody insisted that I was more likely to be hostile than a female -- and being a female (if i were one) I'd be offended that somebody didn't think that I could possibly be as hostile as any male might be.
So, I'm going to ask, and I know that it won't do any good... please don't do that. People are different from one another. Males and females, swedes and brits, etc, etc, are not.
Next, I'm shocked by the notion that women haven't been involved with internet, and computing in general, for just as long as men have. I know of at least two women currently on the OpenVMS engineering team at compaq (formerly dec) who've been there AFAIK for a very long time. I have a friend who was one of the original designers of LynxOS, and happens to be a woman. I've heard stories of women doing work on the multics team at honeywell... need I continue?
It seems appearent to me that women have been involved in this kind of stuff for a long time, and that shouldn't be any different.
Certainly there's a taboo about women and technology, but I think that's purely superficial -- again, like the percieved difference between men and women -- and should go away. Look at the evidence, though, and you'll see several women who were determined to work with technology, and didn't let that stop them.
In fact, I'd like to express my deep admiration for these people. I wish more people were like that.
So, in conclusion, this entire story, and most of the messages that it's recieved, are irrelevant, and regard imaginary subject matter.
Don't we have more important things to worry about than creating gaps between large groups of people? Can't we go and cure cancer, fly to mars, or something?
Really.
Can't agree more. I know of a small group of guys who enter chat rooms masquerading as girls purely for the sake of online ... you know. With more and more women entering Byte Club it should change things. One can presume that our collective online perception of how females chat, vs how males chat, will now begin to turn back towards reality. Just once I'd like to know that the screen-name I'm doing the digital dance with is not another "Lola" (a la The Kinks).
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
We can't forget the trolls, now can we, but troll is so male
:P) Nevermind the fact that trolling is more a state of being than anything else... (or a state of having hot grits in your pants, whatever)
Actually, troll is a race (for you D&D types) or species (for the rest
Captain Pedantic to the rescue....!
----
Dave
Purity Of Essence
- Dave
Geez can you say bandwagon. First Harpers then NYT . Why all the sudden the great stress on women on the net?? They are there just like any other "group."
While demographics are an interesting topic. The Internet is about results and substance. Regardless of race, creed, gender, or religion a person's worth is messured by their positive or negative contribution.
The answer is in the source!
Predestination was doomed from the start.
As I understand it, men and women currently are using the Internet in approximately equal numbers. It has been projected that the number of women on-line will outnumber men by a ratio of 3/2 in 2002. Here is a NetSmart America press release from August, 1999, that details Internet usage by sex (for some reason, my local paper ran this story just a couple a days ago).
Jeff
my mistake lego boy. Like I said these online messages are often hard to interpret... flame off.
AMEN!
The anonymity of the Internet has offered women a venue to explore fields that they have not been encouraged to explore in school...such as science, technology and math.
Women must take advantage of this, to avoid being run over by this "information revolution". It's a golden opportunity, let's quit reinforcing our same stereotypes.
The Net ain't a frontier, we aren't cowboys.
Why do I not find it suprising that you base your stereotype of women being on the internet to chat on the "Real World"?
I just love it when people make judgements on real life based on so called "real shows"...crap like road rules, real world, dating story... makes me wanna puke.
As for these people who quit their jobs for online chatting...get a life. jeez.
And as for you not having an opinion? It sounds like you do not approve of them quitting their jobs...but hey online messages are deceiving. Like when you say "rediculously" even though it is spelled wrong, it's one of those "I'm making a personal judgement" words!
Well, I don't really need the "feminine" online community - *my* online community is Slashdot, Technocrat and IGLU.
I define myself first as a geek, and only secondary as female.
Tough
Ballerinas have fins that you'll never find
*ahem* well, I probably wouldn't remember all the moves now. I used to play often with my husband, but we haven't played since the time I finally beat him... heh. Funny, it just hasn't come up since then.
Bandwidth as an attractant... maybe I should print off some bumper stickers. "I've got broadband and no current girlfriend. Want the job?"
Hells yes, you'd get my attention.
I remember driving down I-75 through downtown Atlanta once last year and there was a car in the lane to the left of me that had a big Red Hat sticker on the back... better believe I was trying to check him out. Though I'm out of the dating market these days, it can be mighty tough to even make friends with people who are into technology. It's because they all hide at home in the blue glow of their monitors...
If all the "geeks" had special identifying insignia, it'd make making friends SO much easier. No need to waste time making smalltalk with someone to find out he/she doesn't have a clue...
(me? techno-elitist snob? why do you ask?)
"LinuxChicks" is a positive reclamation of a negative name. I approve wholeheartedly. What bugs me is the use of the word chick in a way that reinforces, or at least does nothing to break the negative stereotypes. A site for "chicks" full of chat and entertainment links sends a message that I wouldn't want my young daughter to see - that under the rhetoric of "positive reclamation of a negative name" lies the same old brainwashing.
-aiabx
Just this guy, you know?
Jon writes -
> Chickclick is crammed with TV stories, movie chats and music-sharing discussions. The site is colorful, smart, newsy and centered around conversations, both one-on-one and many-to-many.
Am I the only one who read this as patronizing praise? Would anyone describe slashdot as "colorful", or "newsy"? Am I alone in seeing the word "cute" between the lines?
And I won't even discuss the use of the word "chick" to describe women. Oh hell, I will. The whole business of "chick movies" and "chick TV" and now the "Clickchicks" is vilely condescending. The term would be ironic and amusing if chick-* referred to non-traditional female pursuits and interests, like building drag racers or video drivers, but is insulting applied to things like romantic movies, slushy melodrama and conversation centered websites.
Women deserve better than this!
Just this guy, you know?
Which is why today I am finally going to exclude Katz from my list of authors...
/. should do a db dump of the excludes from the user prefs, and post it... I'd like to see the % of people who exclude each author... it'd be interesting.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
he always has been - haven't you read his other columns?
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
It's no big deal, and to add to the earlier message, ridiculous was meant in a humourous way, rather than to pass judgement.
That's the other reason I'm a big fan of meeting people face to face though, body language and the nuances involved in tone of voice.
------
Following line: Good example of Fair Use.
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
I'm not anal, so I'm not going to peruse your post very carefully for spelling and/or grammatical errors.
Would "Real World" (tm) have been a better way to explain to you that I refer to the great expanse with a blue sky that is somewhere beyond the curtained basement you seem to have temporarily crawled out of?
As your point about real shows doesn't apply, most of your arguments are invalid. Even so, I will restate that this is through personal experience. Didn't you go through high school? If not, you'll understand it in a few more years.
Some research reveals that you are both female and either a graduate student or emoplyed somewhere.
Risking annoying you even more, I would ask if you remember how all the "popular" girls would chat on the phone from about grade six onwards nonstop. If not, fine; although I'm not sure how that's possible. I'm simply stating the fact that they now do it online.
(sincerly, the apparently sexist, mysogenic pig, legoboy)
------
Following line: Good example of Fair Use.
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
All men are created unequal. -Robert Heinlein
"Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz.
... No Thanks. "
/. who doesn't care about him, so that argument is not valid. There are plenty of people for you to talk with who don't care about katz...
I have yet to read a single Katz article that I would call "journalism." But even if he published such a thing, does it matter? He tries to pass everything else off as journalism too. Without getting too involved in this, I certainly would not call the "Hellmouth" or "Wave" series journalism. They were essentially common knowledge with a hysterical reactive pro-geek undertone. No where did I find any honest to god analytical thinking going on there. It's simply rubbish. "
American Heritage to the rescue:
Journalism n. 1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articals.
Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
"a) The more intelligent readership get turned off and leave. This effects me by leaving me with mediocre "community members" whom generally can't make a case if their life depended on it. "
Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals.
"b) Because Katz's crap soaks up both bandwidth and mindshare, the other content suffers. In other
words, if the powers-that-be have 2 or 3 Katz articles up, they have less interest in posting other information. "
I only recall one occasion on which there were 2 katz articals up simultaneously. Bandwidth is a non-issue if you turn him off. Mindshare is a non-issue if, as you believe, "intelligent people don't care about katz." If they don't care, then how does it waste their mindshare?
" Katz propogates dogma and geek FUD. This approach to life leaks into the rest of slashdot."
Dogma? I've never heard him say "you must believe this." I've heard him state opinions, but he's an opinion columnist, for christ's sake. "This approach to life," is stating opinions. If that's a problem, then you must be thinking of a different slashdot than I am.
" I don't care if you argue per se. I care that pretty much all I see on slashdot is pointless arguments, which in turn detracts from slashdot."
I don't consider the things I argue about pointless, unless they're in the "ultimately unimportant, but fun to discuss" category. Also, what is "pointless" is a matter of opinion, purely. If you don't like that, don't read it - it's moderated low enough that you don't have to.
" What you are essentially advocating is passivity. Why vote? Other people want it otherwise. Why make yourself heard, if most people want to think otherwise? Why fight for anything if you can just "move"?
What I am advocating is minding your own business. The only argument you've made about the undesireablity of Katz is that he detracts from your mindshare. But there's a large part of
But it looks like a lot of people *do* care about katz - he's got high comment numbers in the hof, if that means anything. if these people are, as you contend, "not intelligent" then you shouldn't mind losing them. If they are intelligent, and they want to read Katz, then I ask again, who are you to stop them? Because you care more about what you want to talk about then what they want to talk about? and you think that whining like this will somehow convince them that katz is not worth talking about? Yeah, real mature.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
>>Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
/."
>You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
"You know what I mean." No, I don't. I have no clue what you are talking about. Columbine was certainly news - major newspapers like the NYT reported on it. It's a big deal. His pieces on it were opinion pieces. As for people who make art from feces, I *do* call them artists. I even saw one of them who was a good artist, although most of them probably aren't (by Sturgeon's law if nothing else).
>>Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals
>I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence.
Taco and Hemos seem to like Katz - and they're clearly intelligent. I am intelligent. You're just plain wrong here.
>You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything.
So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
Wait... you know 15 people who you consider intelligent, who ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO CLICK A BUTTON?
Wow. I want to know what you consider to be intelligent.
On second thought, I don't.
>The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Slashdot's limits on article posting are not bandwidth limits. They're a style issue. Rob doesn't say "uh-oh better not post this, we're out of bandwidth for the day." That's not how it works. He posts things that he's interested in. That's all there is to it. So, Katz articals are being posted because Taco cares about them. Other articals are not being posted because Taco doesn't care.
As for "He adds little or nothing to this world," Well, tell that to the 1000's of people who posted on the hellmouth series. What he adds is this: a catalyst for discussion. That's the point of the Slashdot comments: discussion, argument, debate, etc. When I see a Katz article, I am happy. Not because I am particularly likely to agree with him, but because I want to discuss the issues he raises.
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
> Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact.
Documented where? Seriously, if "Intelligent peopel don't read katz," then their mindshare *CAN'T* be taken up by it.
>Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read.
That's pretty ridiculous. Jon katz gets commented on a lot - but his articles (with 1 exception) are not among the most widely read. See the HOF.
>Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Katz doesn't run anyone off. He only takes the attention of those who read him - the other people are SMART ENOUGH TO CKICK A LITTLE FUCKING BUTTON!
" Katz promotes a certain mind set."
He's an opinion columnist.
" I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time."
I've never seen a Katz quote anywhere. If you mean things like "corporatism" or "geek," well, what do you expect? It's "News for Nerds," and at least some nerds (like me) seem to (horror of horrors!) care about the same things Katz does, EVEN IF we don't agree with him.
> Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me.
Then don't participate in them. Porno flicks do nothing for me, so I don't watch them.
>These discussions crowd out content that does.
Again, how? As aI said earlier, katz articles aren't the most widely read. Also, if, as you contend, "Intelligent people don't read katz," then they clearly have as much time on a day witha akatz article as on a day without.
>It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
It only affects you if you let it - there are plenty of other articles each day. There wouldn't be more of them if katz left tomorrow.
> What you are advocating is my keeping my mouth shut because you happen to like Katz. You are being hypocritical at the very least. I see crap that I do not like, I speak out against it. I was taught to call a spade a spade. If Katz is manipulating many people on slashdot with formulaic efficiency, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
Speaking out against katz's opinion is one thing. I support posting saying "Katz is wrong, here's why." I do it from time to time. What I have a problem with is metaposts - "Kick katz off
Here's an example from your post:
"Not all of slashdot is his target audience, he appeals to a certain faction very very consistently with the party line. "
1. It's false - his articles appeal to me, and I disagree with him frequently. Also, there is no party. Slashdot, if you'll take the time to actually read it, is a very diverse group. Does slashdot support sharing mp3s? some of us do, and some of us don't.
2. It's off topic. Katz is not the topic of a katz article. Slashdot is not the topic of a katz article.
3. It doesn't explain why JK is bad/wrong. Well, it purports to, but does so *inaccurately* Here are the lines:
"he does his best to inspire dislike"
Not a chance - that charge is outrageous on its face.
"My objection to this, of course, is that Katz is absolutely the most meaningless."
Meaningless? This is sating that katz is bad, but calling a person meaningless is not explaining why that person is meaningless - You've made an unsubtantiated charge here.
So, in short, your post was a content free rant against Katz, and against Slashdot. It wasn't speaking out against anything, because it had no content.
> Obviously, each person can only speak from his or her own perspective. I and many others think Katz is horrible. We state what we think about him. That is what democracy is about, not keeping your mouth shut.
Like I said - speak out against katz's stuff if you don't agree with him. But when you do, make sure you have something to say, rather than baseless accusations and name-calling.
>In addition, I also attempt to illuminate Katz's "style", for everyone to see. Perhaps when they see the truth, then Slashdot will have an economic incentive to cut him off.
Your attempt failed, IMHO, because your post didn't illuminate anything. It was composed entirely of name-calling.
>For others (e.g., in my root comment), I pointed out Katz's "formula for success". Not a whine, just strongly supported observation. You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up.
I believe your root comment was the one with the perl in the subject. If I'm wrong, then that's OK - maybe your root comment was good. The "s/whatever..." comment was not good.
"You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up. "
I can "handle" your comments. But I don't have to 1. agree and 2. agree that you are doing the right thing by posting them. I am telling you to shut up because you are off topic, and your post did not make any legitimate arguments. Had you not been so highly moderated, I would have ignored you. But you were moderated up for such an inane waste of time that I had to comment.
"Your argument is "people like Katz". But, if we listened to you, there would never be any criticisms of him, and thus you'd never be able to get an accurate picture of who likes him."
My argument is "people like JK articles." That's a different argument entirely. I like them because I like the comments. I didn't even read "Rise of the DickLickers," or whatever it was called. So argue against JK all you like - I whole-heartedly support it. But that's different entirely from ranting against the existence of JK
"Contrast this with my requests/arguments/etc for slashdot to change it's content, which is not, and never was, chosen in a democratic fashion. "
/. is not a democracy. It is a news and opinion site. Requests for slashdot to change its content should probably go to the people who post it, rather than the community at large. And they should consist of more than unsupported name-calling.
" It is funny though, in your initial comment you were afraid to be moderated down for supporting Katz. Yet you seem to assert that Katz is supported by most people and that moderation is meaningfull. I don't think you can have it both ways. In my opinion, both are flawed...but I don't have time left. Bye."
I assert that most people like having JK around, even if they don't admit it, and even if they disagree with him. I don't think that most people do agree with him. Am I clearer now? Now, before you have to listen to any more of this, GO CLICK THE LITTLE FUCKING BOX.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
"Likewise, if you can't spell "article", I can hardly expect you to know what a good article is."
nothing like a good spelling flame. I'm being trolled.
" Because he is a crappy writer in my opinion [not that this is just opinion], it is also entirely reasonable for me to think he affects me negatively whether or not I ignore him. "
Wow, this is the best troll I've seen in ages! Until this line, I thought you were serious. But no one other than Dan Quayle could have kept a straight face while writing this.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
tho I will say the Chickclick network is a lot better than what's out there...
Most "women's" sites rehash beauty and homemaking mag crap (just check out women.com), goofy quizzes (imagine my surprise when my "soul sister" turned out to be Queen Latifah based on five generic questions).
Women's content on the web sucks. I don't like being the target of Martha Stewart or beauty products or anything that I "should" be interested in because I'm female. I find the personal information these sites ask for is incredible, and they all proclaim to be for the sisterhood, yet they can't resist pitching magazine subscriptions, $50 cookie cutters and lipstick. I'm a real woman! Give me something real.
I hate to think that just because I am female these sites (and mags) assume I am automatically interested in heart warming stories and sit around all day batting my eye lashes to woo the "perfect man" while dreaming up a five course meal.
Salon has had some great articles about these kind of sites aimed at women *and* their wallets...at least, like their motto, Chickclick is a site that doesn't fake it...there's nothing I dislike than being deceived, especially under the guise of corporate friendliness
Even if the quote was made up, I have to believe it. When I worked in a library I played dumb all the time. The older women didn't want to know that I knew more about the internet and computers and where the books actually where in the library. I've played dumb for guys a lot...but now I am happily going out with a nerd who doesn't mind...*g* who else would cuddle with him on the couch and talk about command line interfaces? :-) :-))
(yes, I am a girl. A proud gonzo grrrl
I agree. I drove my mother nuts by playing with boys and most of my friends are men. It's a world I'm comfortable in and don't feel threatened...because it is, like you say, hard to find other women who really like programming and it's not something that ends at the end of the work day for them.
OTOH, I was mostly shut out of any female groups because I just didn't have the interest in frilly things. I told my mom I just couldn't be a delicate child.
I don't fit into "women's" sites either...closest would be the chickclick network, I admit...
Okay, maybe that's what the statistics say, but
we all know statistics are rarely accurate.
I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't get out in real life and make friends regardless of gender, and need to spill your guts online, that's a problem right there. I feel sorry for ppl when I peek at a messageboard and you see the same name there constantly...what's preventing them from getting out in the sun, you know?
As a frequent visitor of "male-oriented geek and nerd sites" I'm not seeing this obbessive love of pop culture. Look at it this way isn't any geek or nerd web site by definition not part of mainstream pop culture? I would say that the ultimate geek community site is /. and it's success is due entirely to the fact that it's content isn't obsessed with pop culture. If the slogan around here changed from "news for nerds. stuff that matters" to "news for me and you. stuff that's cool and hip today!" I think we'd all drop /. like a hot potato*
What Katz is observing here is nothing special, it is simply one more arm of mainstream society coming online and bringing their values/interests with them. The division will always be between geeks and non-geeks, not between men and women. Us geeks will always flock to places like slashdot regardless of gender, here we will have (mostly) intelligent discourse over issues that concern and interest us. The non-geeks will come online and bring all the shallow tripe that dominates their "real" lives with them. I imagine that the average female slashdotter is about as interested in these "chickclicker" sites as I am in ESPN, that is to say, couldn't care less.
Just my thoughts on the subject...
------------------------
* I'd like to apologize for the use of this metaphor, it was completly uncalled for and has no business appearing in this forum. If you feel that you've suffered serious mental health damage due to reading this metaphor I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with it.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Just the other day, I was thinking to myself, "You know, it's been way too long since Slashdot had an article along the lines of 'Oh my god, there're women on the Net!'" I was beginning to worry.
Look, there're going to be women on the net. Some of 'em aren't going to use it for anything more than chatting. Some of 'em are going to get passionately interested in the way it works and go about learning about it. If they're interested, good. If not, also good.
Feminism was never about making women just like men. It's about making sure that women had the same opportunities and chances as men. If a woman's not into computers, that's fine. If she is into computers, but she's having to cope with a hostile environment which turns her off, THEN we have a problem.
I don't know what to think about these sites, except the ones Jon describes seem to be aiming at a younger group. Sadly, girls at this age are still encouraged to be daft, so it's no surprise to me that it's all about hair and boys. But that doesn't mean that women are not and will never be interested in computing. That's a gross generalization.
everstar
The truth is out! I wasn't paying attention in High School English.
I would like to say that if more young women are finding and building a world they like on the net, more power to em.
I am a guy. I don't pretend to remotley understand the pressures young women go through
Furthermore, as a self-styled geek, I have always valued brains over beauty, so I hope I haven't been part of the unintentional, non-concious oppression that is often discussed.
The net has for many years been a form of communication that has allowed people to express themselves without being embarressed or scared. As a fairly quiet person myself, I guarentee I wouldn't have the guts to make my ideas like this public if I had to do it IRL. Not becuase I am ashamed or embarressed of my ideas, but rather that I lack the self confidence to share.
In my experience and understanding of the world, the media and many men try and push women into nice little do-this, don't do that boxes. Smart girls often act dumb and don't reach their own potential, because of the stigmas our world attaches to being smart and successful as a women.
It is up to every one of us men to do one of the following (and frankly, I am never sure which is appropriate...):
1) Encourage girls to reach their full potential and beyond.
2) Keep our noses out of their online world and let it be everything they make it.
I guess I am breaking #2, but even so, I hope I haven't made to much of an ass of myself.
Anyhow, I will fall back into the shadows of the net now.
More Caffeine. NOW
That's great! Maybe it means that all those "women" in the assorted chat rooms may actually be female now?!!!
Female, perhaps, but human? They could be chimps!
I think you're missing out the original author's point here.
Say there's a situation in which the "volume" rises. As you said, you got volume. If you assert yourself, you're considered a rational, thinking individual. If she asserts herself, she's considered a bitch, "getting emotional" or "it must be that time of the month." Or worse still, "she's so cute when she's mad," or something to that effect.
Now I've seen this happen, and no doubt you've seen it happen as well. Women who speak up for themselves are -- in general -- treated with a cold shoulder if they're listened to at all.
In the business world you're told to play the game, walk the walk, talk the talk. You have to play a role. And thus, as a woman, your role is to play servile. A lot of women throughout history have found that it's easier, less dangerous, and often more productive to just play dumb, as it were. And it wasn't until the feminist movement really came along that women on a large scale said they weren't going to be treated as chattel any more and made a stand -- regardless of what the concequences may be.
But the ERA still died, didn't it?
_This_ is what the enviornment consists of. And thus -- in answer to your query -- yes, the problem _is_ the enviornment.
And it's not just something one can leave.
-- r . m o s q u i t o --
Oops... IRC should read IRL...
*need to get out more*
- Damnit, I'm dead Jim
Churchill's Commentary on Man: Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on
THat was the quote at the bottom of the article...
- Damnit, I'm dead Jim
I couldn't agree more. I know plenty of girls IRC that like computers and technology...
/. opinion of Katz... GET A LIFE!
I live in Bath, UK, (where Netcraft are based) and sometimes go for drinks with some of the staff from Netcraft. I sometimes bring a friend of mine (her web page is here. At some point during the evening, the subject of Windoze coding came up. She was the only person there who knew what the Win32 API was (she's still in school, and some of the big Netcraft techs were there).
Girls having an interest in computers and technology isn't anything new.
I'm starting to agree with the common
- Damnit, I'm dead Jim
it's so dependent on context, just as all the other 'insult co-opted as empowering word' terms like the n word, dyke, fag, geek, etruscan, u.s.w.
now substitute 'cloying' or 'grating' for 'offensive' and you may have something.
Otherwise, I think of words like that as "I know it's supposed to be offensive, that's why I use it!" What's a good term for that: recursively ironic, perhaps?
First off I feel obligated to remind Mr. Katz that not all women on the web are disinterested in technology or interested only in warm, fuzzy community building with other "chicks" (and god, how I hate being called a chick). I'm female, and, as an IT student and professional I am naturally interested in the technology aspects of the web and computing in general-- my livelihood depends on it. So don't tell me that women aren't interested in technology.
Anyway-- I think that that web user's interests (to use this example of technology-oriented vs. communication oriented) are broken down so much by gender (although that cannot be discounted as a factor) but by age. At age 19, I spent most of my childhoon in a time when the web was just starting out, and personal computers were far from ubiquitous. Now, I use the internet/web as a tool for finding information (technology related and otherwise), as a utility for school work and job-related stuff, and for keeping in touch with existing friends. I don't really use it as a community-forming tool, and I think because I didn't grow up using it in that context.
My 15 year old younger brother, on the other hand, is spending most of his childhood in a time where PCs are nearly universal and where the web is amazingly more advanced than when I was his age. At his age, he still doesn't know the difference between hard drive space and RAM capacity, but he is quite profficient at using PCs and the web to improve his life. He uses computers/the web to play games and communicate with his friends and in online communities. He doesn't care about the technologies involved, because he doesn't have to, and he doesn't remember a time when web technology issues were very much a concern for the end user. I think we will see more of this phenomenon as younger web users, who are inclined to view the web as simply another appliance for living, keep coming on line.
---- I'm going to lead you kicking and screaming, giggling and laughing into the future.
1. Chickclickers is a really sucky name.
:)
2. Maybe I missed somthing, but, I think anybody who would say that their "tech-savvy", and, dare I say, use a buzzword, probably isn't. To me, tech-savvy isn't being able to pull up Yahoo! or maybe change the background in Windoze. Tech-savvy is understanding the technology, something which you stated girls just don't care about.
3. Web-design isn't complicated. At least not most of it. Unless you have a really high-traffic site with lot's and lot's of CGI/SQL/Java, it's just pretty easy. I've even heard some people saying "Everybody and his/her grandma has a webpage!" -It really isn't that hard, Jon, is it? (though, I've never seen any html in your posts.....hmm.....)
4. How can you _NOT_ want to understand something. I don't think this is a male/female thing, this has to do with you being a nerd (or geek or whatever you call it....). I've wanted to understand _everything_ before I've used it, my whole life.
5. Blah, it's just as easy for a girl to have an interest in science/math/technology as a guy, only girls, as a whole, just don't care about it! I know 4 girls who very much are interested in science, the amazing thing is, all have been homeshcooled. It is simply people would rather be popluar then smart, something, which, I just can't understand.
6. I hardly think that girls coming online are going to be the second most important thing to happen to the internet. Come on Jon, get a reality check...how many "best" things can we really have?
7. So, girls some how intuitivly grasp technology, huh? I don't think so...not the ones I know. If they learn things quickly, they seen to grasp tech quickly too, if they don't, well.....their still wondering how to get AIM....
8. And, as a side note, I'm interested in using the internet to find girls too
Grades, Social Life, Sleep....Pick Two.
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
It *might* have just been acknowledging the likelihood that most of the health & beauty sites are of interest primarily to women...
One would suspect that such products as herbal remedies (usually marketed as natural, as if that were somehow always a GOOD thing; natural != healthful. Botulism is perfectly "natural" for instance.)
and, say, perfume, are normally not marketed to men regardless of medium, with perhaps an exception in that guys may be besieged with ads for gifts 'round Valentine's.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
But men do also connect socially online, (...) through collaborative involvement designing software and writing code,and gaming. The communication appears more indirect, even disguised.
Blokes connect fully through the net. We don't feel the need to bare our feelings, talk endlessly about who fancies who, what lipstick to wear that doesn't look tarty or whether or not our arses look big in those jeans.
That is why our communication is "indirect" because we have no need of "direct" communication (Katz's definition, not mine). This "post feminist" world has been achieved at the expense of the masculinity of the male. We are forced by media and pop psychologists to search our souls for our "feelings" only to find that we don't really give a toss, then we are forced to feel "incomplete" by the same media and psychological pundits.
Wasn't expecting Katz to get this one wrong... Maybe someone replaced his brain with lime jelly (that's jello for you septics)
At the end of the day, the men who created the net and the nerds like us who maintain it would have put something like this together (because we do feel the need to understand and grok the technology) long ago if we'd have felt the need. The net is an adaptive beast and is modified in compressed timescales to serve it's creators and maintainers; Katz seems to have forgotten this.
Jon Katz : I offer you a wager. You learn to code in C or C++ to industrial standard and I will learn how to write like a journalist, and we will understand one another more; might bring you more in line with the nerderati on
How's about it, Jon?
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
John Katz did not make up "ChickClickers"... I'm not saying I would have titled my article that, but the name is (at least) from ChickClick (according to that article up there a highly navigable, user-friendly and colorfully-designed site).
It's annoying how much satisfaction slashdotters seem to take in pointing out Katz's faults.
If there's one thing Katz can do then it's to insipre passionate, and i mean PASSIONATE, debate from his readers... He makes highly subjective "ibg calls" on the big issues, net-culture, geek-culture, women. Most of them seems to take generalisations a little far, some of them are intriuiging, some are pretty tabloid-esqure and a fair few are pretty painful to read...
But I don't think anyone one could possibly disagree on the fact that Kataz inspires the most passionate and indeed informative posts. He writes opionion pieces which are always taking one side of the argument, never the middle ground. That side is usually not the side most /.ers agree with. Undoubtedly, these people realise that they should share their views to the world. The thread becomes a pool full of awesome ideas as well as some of the usual Katz sux comments, but that's to be expected...
Just reading through the posts on this article without reading too much of the article itseelf (which doesn't sound like one of his better efforts) has been a pretty informative experience... I don't personally know of any other forum where you will here so many passionate people talk about a topic like this. It's been a great read
Maybe some people don't think /. should be about people having a slanging match about net-culture, it should be just news about the coolest bits and pieces in geek hardware and open-source... Maybe these are valid views, but personally, I think listening/reading what views other people have to say on somethings can be a very rewarding experience indeed...
I read an article today on The St. Paul Pioneer Press about the influx of females, young and old, on the Internet and how they are just not interested in any of that icky technical stuff. They even had a teacher saying that her female CS students blame themselves if something unexpected happens when they are using a machine. This attitude was, disappointingly (I always liked the Pioneer Press), presented as "just the way it is with those girls."
I'm a female and have been programming, designing and screwin' around on the Net for many many years now. What I see is women and girls using the Internet the same way they use telephones (talking, chatting, gossiping, blah blah blah) and television (Ally McBeal, Providence, "Why would I want to watch the /news/? Yuck!"). If that is what females want with the Internet, more power to them, but, keep in mind, that perhaps they are stereotyping themselves just a little bit too.
In addition to your flawless academic record and English, you're not even remotely concieted!
--
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Um, no its not. Why is reading the posts hypocritical? I simply like to be able to defend my argument. If the enemy leaves intelligence to help your cause, do you ignore, I think not.
I disagree. Your argument points out a physical difference. You know I am NOT talking about that. I am referring to intellectual and social capability. When was the last time you woke up and thought to yourself, oh yeah, no women is as capable as me, so I can rest easy. I bet you never have. I don't mean to be forced into playing devil's advocate here, but don't defend the other side of an argument that I am not making.
Ironic for Katz to finally concede that women online don't fit the stereotypes after he's done so much to perpetuate them (hmmm..did he forget about that article several weeks ago where he railed against the "male" in-your-face attitude on discussion forums like /. that were driving off the more "female" networkers?)
Katz must be an amalgam of writers because there is absolutely no consistency on his position from one article to the next.
What the hell do you mean that iMac's are marketed towards women? They are marketed towards anybody who want a computer that is not a nasty gray box, and really don't care about how there computer works. I myself am a male PC user, yet I still understand this distintion. A couple months ago, the iMac and it's counterpart the iBook were the number on selling computers in Japan. This still may be true right now. Try and tell me that there is a culture more dominated by males that the japanese. (Note: I am not insulting the japanese, I love them.) Next time, when you try to mock something you don;t like, don't be an idiot about it okay?
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago
Wheaties, breakfast of Champions.
This is exactly what he was talking about. It's nice of you to provide so great an example.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago
Wheaties, breakfast of Champions.
Oh no I opened myself for a Cheap shot, So change "The web" into "Internet" in my post and go on with your life.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
KatchooNJ has written the only sensible post in this whole thread. /.'ers need to lighten up!
I like the kind of net that www.mysteryNet.com is creating. Original online mysteries and crime puzzles that are both unique and inventive.
It just so happens that 80% of the site's unique visitors are female.
- tokengeekgrrl
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions
Did you read the article? This is a name that members of the group have applied to themselves. I know how much fun it is to rag on Katz, but I can't really see why you pin this on him.
yeah. Normally I find Katz's rantings interesting but this one really pissed me off and you really pinned down why - it's that "they are" as opposed to "there is". Wow, look at all those chicks out there learning how to click! Good for them, the little troopers, making their first forays into the scary world of technology, finding empowerment in the fact that they don't have to care how it works.
It's like, the next big thing in the development of the internet ... da da da dum ... Internet for Women!! Sorry, Internet for Chickclickers! Yesterday I was a *person* using the internet the way I have been for years, in my job, at home, in the same way I use the postal system / telephone / library / etc. And today, all of a sudden I'm a Chick who's lucky enough to know how to Click my way into chat rooms where I can form amazing cliques and argue about whether parents should enter their children in beauty pagents.
Dammit, we've been here *all along*. Doing all the same stuff that *you* have. The fact that marketers have started trying to specifically target women via the web does not constitute any kind of cultural revolution.
(music + neurology) * fiction = feedback
To add another aspect to this, I think it is horrible that women, or anyone else who does not care about the mechanics of computers or the internet include them as an important part of their life.
The average person wanders through a life full of black boxes. There is the black box that streams video into their house, so they can watch Friends, the black box that takes them from place to place when they manipulate it with a wheel and petals, the black box that adds and subtracts for them, the black box that heats up their food, the black box that allows them to send email to their friends, the list goes on.
I, and I assume slashdot readers in general, have very few black boxes (if any) in our lives. We can explain, at least in basic terms, how everything in our lives work. They mention using a 'TV' without knowing how it works, but I (and I assume again, most of you) can easly explain the basics of how a CRT works.
I can say from experence that if one tried to explain a CRT (even just the acronym) to the majority of end users of Television, they would completly ignore that person, or even get hostile. They shun explanations of their world. They want things to work, they don't want to think about them.
I remember from back when I knew little about computers, I had to rely on tech support from time to time to help me out of whatever mess I had explored myself into with my machine. After helping me, the teche began to launch into an explanation of the problem, then stopped and asked if I cared. I, of course, said I did and he eagerly explained the problem to me. I was most likely the only caller he had that day who gave a damn, and he was obviously grateful for a captive audience, as I was for the knowledge I gained.
I'm not a teche, but I do deal with end users and computers every day, such as my sister, who fits this bill quite nicely. She loves computers, er, she loves to use them to talk to her friends. She has learned how -- in Windows -- to get to hotmail with IE and load the closed standard AIM.
Disempowered users such as her are more than just a shame, they are dangerous. As the technology gets more engrained in their lives as well as getting more complex, the black boxes will encircle her world and control virtually every aspect of it. So while the 200,000 or so slashdot readers are scared stiff of AOL and the DMCA, and stage our pathetic marches against evil laws which are too complicated for anyone to care about, they will be buying encrypted DVDs by the truckload. We will be fighting heroically to defend the sacred open standards, while they will be chatting away on AOL/Time Warner's proprietory IM and viewing their restricted content.
They will be, in essence, defeating us as well as themselves in their blissful ignorance of the technology at work in their lives.
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''Anything to *ADD*? You'll be passed out on the floor after the first couple of paragraphs with those two rules alone...
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Just divide the number of ppl that respond by the number of ppl in the chan.
-ryan
"Any way you look at it, all the information that a person accumulates in a lifetime is just a drop in the bucket."
--DarthVdr "Why can't we all just get a bong?"
--DV
--DV
In this day it is safer to be a ninja than a samurai
I read chick lickers as the title of this news story. Is there hidden lesbian porn on /.? The world may never know.
Ok, yesterday it was "Calculus Girls." Today it's Katz's "Chickclickers." (I'm not getting into the debate over that term). Obviously, smart, attractive girls are out there, in many fields. And I've seen that it's more than just the smart ones out on the Net. The whole "journalling" phenomenon is largely fueled by females. A meshing of the two somewhere?
All my girlfriend wants to do is browse house sites and jewelery sites. Think she's trying to tell me something? Somehow I haven't quite gotten her to catch onto stileproject.com :(
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
"...even in the professional workplace environment, I find that my voice is drowned out. Many times when I start to speak, some male will start talking over me, and if I continue talking, he will start shouting. This subtly gives women the message that they have nothing worth saying."
I know _exactly_ what you mean. I have a similar problem. It's especially annoying when the man yelling over what I'm saying clearly hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Unfortunately, the mostly braindead management here doesn't know enough to tell the difference. I did find it interesting that, at a company-wide meeting, all the guys in my department were named as having done great work on a specific project, while I, the only female on the team, was ignored - and I was standing right next to two of them at the time. And if that's not enough, the project in question was one that I'd done without any input from any of them.
When I stand up for myself, they write me off as 'hormonal', or make crude references to what time of month it must be.
What do I have to do to get them to listen to what I say, wear a strap-on?
reverend lola
the titanium sheep
provider of steel wool
Oh, but you're so wrong. There IS a winner in "house" :-) Or at least, after the first year or two of them playing.
Boys play on physical, concrete superiority.
Girls play mind games. The girl who rules the most minds, is the winner.
Isn't that what this whole equality thing is all about? I'm not a chickclicker or a geekgrrl or any other sexist moniker you wish to apply to me. I am a geek who happens to be a woman. My browsing habits probably don't differ that much from yours. I buy hardware, not lipstick. I read Slashdot and Ars Technica, not any of those frilly "women's" pages. Yet, somehow, I must be different, right? I have to deal with my relatives asking me if a network administrator is a type of secretary when I tell them what I do. I have to listen as vendors and support personnel assume I don't know what I'm talking about because my voice has a higher pitch than theirs. Now I have to put up with this crap in my own "community" as well? Why is it such a novelty that I might actually know what I am doing? Did you really think that it takes a penis to run a computer? Come on, now, guys... you know better than that.
I ever said about Jon. He might have a chance of scoring before he dies after all.
Come on, Tinkler, Tink!!
Witch? Troll was a bit better, or if you feel the need to differentiate, trollop. Considering that people, both female and male, refer to themselves as witches as a religious choice, that word doesn't really apply here...
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
The majority of the sites out there for girls/women are just as inane as women's magazines. They may be branching out a bit, but are still largely based around makeup, fashion, the home, and relationships. I have yet to see more than a very few sites (if any) for women devoted to gaming, programming, comics, or web design, all things I'd love to see. And the term 'chickclicker' is pretty damn offensive, making me think of my sister typing 'a/s/l' in an AOL chat room (in all caps) and looking at my Unix manual or IRC with a vacant stare.
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
http://www.calculusgirls.com/
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
AOL IM: jeanlucpikachu
[o]_O
"I guess a lot of [us] don't care about the programming code any more than we need to see the insides of the TV before we use it," said Ginger, posting from ROCKRGRL.com, a Chickclick sister site. "The technology is important because it enables us to be here. But I don't care all that deeply how it really works."
If you asked a guy that question, %90 of them will return a "Yea I REALLY want to know how it works. I want to know what is inside, I want to see the source." The other %10 will say, "yea the Internet has free Porn, and that is a good thing."
So (feeding into sterotypes(I know this is wrong, but just for fun)) why is it women are more intersted in the 'community' aspect of it while guys are more inserted in the 'what makes it work' aspect.
It is the way we where built? Are the chemicals flowing though the male brain THAT much differant then the chemicals flowing though the female brain. Are female brain constructed or wired so DIFFERANTLY then a males brain of the SAME biology species?
This based off stero-typing, so I am glad it isn't true. But, just one point, I have yet to meet a women that was learning about computer to learn about computers. The only women I personally have meet that where learning computer, was because of another reason (job requirement, school, required class, etc).
Also (from personal expeirnce) most men just don't talk to talk, they talk for another reason (information gather/sharing, interview, personal freedoms/rights). Most men (including myself) can't just sit down and "talk", they have to have some reason behind it, like learning/enlighting about an issuse. To be honest with you all, this post, isn't a post to just "talk" or to be part of your "community" (your community sucks, dam grits trolls), I have a secert motive, I want to learn "why" there is such a gender gap in computers?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
I see your point. I have purposed in the past that there should be a "Flame board" on slashdot where all the "grits" trolls could got and "get off" on annoying the crap out of each other.
Some people are assholes, plan and simple, but sometimes people that are lacked in the HCP seem to be labeled as assholes just because they don't say much or have a need to commuicate as much as their "normal" peers.
For the real assholes, I think they are just kids being kids, trust me though they will grow out of it. Try to stay away from #hAx0Rs and #grits on irc.
I also enjoy talking to women more then men, but I don't know if this is related or ontopic.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
flamebait!!! -1? WTF that was praise for a good comment and I didn't have any mod points man.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
LOL
Ok I hear you now loud and clear.
I did awhile back see a "game girls" site on the web, that was basically like all the men's game site but didn't have Lara Croft posted everywhere and the maturity level seemed a bit higher then the most other sites. They had quake2 servers listed, forums, downloads, cheats, things like that, but was targeted more towards mature women (note: it did NOT have lara croft posted everywhere).
I also hate those people that think a Quake2 deathmath really means IRC. WTF is that about, running around fraging people and someone is filling your screen up with
"So where are you from?"
"a/l/s?"
"a/l/s?"
"a/l/s?"
"Do you play here a lot?"
"You still here?"
"You still here?"
"What school do you go to?"
"a/l/s?"
ARGG get away from me.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
For every teen girl out there who is on the net just to gossip and look for pages on boy bands, there is some teen guy out there on the net for the sole purpose of finding porn. For that matter, I know tons of guys who use AOL. I will grant that most of the so-called geeks I know are guys, but that doesn't mean the majority of the girls on the net are idiots. In fact, almost all the girls I know who use the net are reasonably intelligent, and many of them are brilliant. Sorry if that came out rude, it wasn't actually meant to. Just struck a personal note w/ me seeing as I'm 16 and female.
Wait- so it's OK to stereotype as long as you limit it to a smaller age group? Seriously, it'd be OK if you just said teen girls are less likely to be into the intimate details of computer use than teen guys, but what you appear to be saying is that we tend to be teenyboppers.
You're my hero.
OK, I've been reading this for about an hour, and my head went insane. Who the ???? cares if the net population (which cannot be evaluated, except for publicity purpose(you people know why, I won't bother you))has 60% women? Perhaps the psychos on IRC, that do the so-called "cybering". A sane mind wouldn't even care about these things... Maybe the people here were right, I don't try to deny that. But as long as we are talking about percentage of women on net, we cannot stop being sexist. And this is all about, as far as I can see (I can see too far, you know?). PEOPLE, wake up, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT SEX!
Spooky of the CyBurial Squad
Actually, I think the think with "chick"- is a positive reclamation of a negative name; like how gays have taken back "faggot" and how black people (Well, mostly hip-hop heads, but that's neither here nor there) have taken back the word "nigger".
Viva La revolution!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
some of these women appear to embrace a new political value system. They are post-feminists who take their equality for granted and don't make it a central issue in their online lives.
Excuse me?! If they are REALLY "post-feminists" who take their equality for granted and don't make it a central issue, then why are they forming all-girl sites and talk about making it an issue?!
And when did complete equality happen in the world? While I was sleeping??
Aside from these very obvious pick-a-part rants, I think this statement is a little over-obvious, and something that has been batted around for ages. Due to the 'facelesness' of the internet, people are not only free from culturally defined gender roles, but they are free to explore themselves... and given the free-form nature of the web/net (whatever it's called these days) people are gonna find something that speaks to them, find other people with the same interests, and form communities. But this is all old news... it was old news when I took that "Rhetoric of New Media" class 4 years ago!
Now how does labeling them as "chick-clickers" (a moniker STEEPED in gender) help empower/liberate? Just say no to buzz-words.
On a side note: My fiance, who was an international relations major and is about to start law school after working with mutual funds, is one of these self actualized post feminist warriors of the new economy/bleeding edge technology front (as it were); she networked with people who were also applying to law school (to compare lsat statistics, to time acceptance letters, etc.), does 90% of her clothes shopping on line (What better dressing room than your bedroom?), and gets her news from the washington post online, www.obscurestore.com, and The Onion (america's finest news source). And if you called her a chick-clicker she'd slit your face.
Word up, murder!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
well, we've got 'girlgamers' and 'hackers' and 'opensource nerds' and now, *i'll be darned*, 'chickclickers'. how original. another group we can quantify, generalize about, rally around and, gee, SELL stuff to! i KNOW it's harder to be an individual. it's *harder* to make your own decisions, choose your own likes and dislikes, make your own way.....but come on! people are so afraid of the responsibility, creativity and work involved in NOT buying into an *image*........ ack.
----------
----------
Computer programmers do it byte by byte.
Most of the attempts to associate women and computers seem to be patronising and sexist.
I saw an advertisment on (UK) TV a couple of days ago. I think it was for a magazine or a Sunday supplement about the Internet for Women. Essentially the gist was "We think that women are petrified of computers. We'll show you where all the sites about health and cosmetics are" (I get the feeling articles inside said "If this is too complicated get a man to help")
I think what we really need to do is to get rid of the assumption that Women are stereotypes.
I don't think that female web-users are really anything new; it's simply being encouraged more (for everyone, not just women), and people are finally taking notice, especially the media and advertisers, who now have a new demographic to cater to. Once a story about women gets to the media, people often think of it as a new sensation.
I am female, but I have never bought any teen magazines or "women's" magazines because the articles don't interest me; sometimes, I find them downright offensive or intrusive ("lose weight fast!" "how to make him feel good!"). Many of these websites that supposedly cater to women are exactly of this format and I have no interest in them whatsoever. These are not the types of sources of info I'm interested in, yet I'm "supposed" to be intregued by details on how to avoid bad hair days.
I've always thought of the Web as an incredible source of information, with little (read: zero) thought toward the gender the sites were catering to or created by. It just didn't apply. As a student, I have researched many papers and interests on the Web, sometimes being the only person in class, male or female, to have ventured on the Web. This is the part of the Internet I love -- the part where gender doesn't matter (nor does creed, color, nationality, or age); just an incredible wealth of information and sharing of ideas.
IRC is another great source of information and a great way to talk to and "meet" people. I do use IRC, and (except for the channels I frequent), I do not publicize my gender because of the offensive and intrusive messages I receive from men (no, I do not hate men, just the ones who automatically assume that I'm looking for a little *wink*nudge*, if you know what I mean).
To be honest, I feel sort of bad for the men. If these kinds of sites are available for women (even if they don't serve my types of interests), there should be a comparable set of sites for men. Of course, this probably won't happen because some raging feminist will cry "bloody murder."
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Why do you people get so offended by being called geeks?? holy crap!! you're reading news on a site that reports stuff that geeks care about... you ARE geeks! who cares if you're not the sterotypical 80's geek with the black rimmed glasses with white tape around the bridge, you're still a geek.- -----
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
It is one thing for your style to match your readership, it is an entirely different thing when everything the "journalist" writes agrees with his audience's dogma.
Mr Katz has written stuff which disagreed with his audience. He got flamed. He then wrote a number of pieces inspired by all the flames he received. That is journalism - you get paid by the word. Intellectual honesty is nice, but money is the prime motivator for most journos.
BTW, I would be interested to hear the motivation of the Slashdot 'powers-that-be' for bringing Mr Katz to prominence.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
Whoa! Steady on. That was a serious comment not flamebait.
Where in my comment do I say that I don't like iMacs? I used to work in a office full of them and while not using them personaly I could definetly see their worth for all things graphical. My comment stems from the fact that, Steve Jobs has said, when building the iMac Apple designed a computer for women.
May I suggest that before you post next time you take a walk and cool down.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
This opens up alot of doors to new web sites and other internet business's that cater specifically to the female market.
Just look at the iMac for example.
"Do you think we could wipe out world hunger forever if scientists figured out how to make AOL's Free CD's edible?"-
I'm not one of the pure Katz Haters, sometimes I think you have interesting things to say, and sometimes I get alot from your columns. This is a different story. I'm sorry, but how many times can we say that men are more technical and women are more social?
Fine, this is clear. I also wouldn't necessarily say that women getting involved in the internet is "the most important online movement today" or however you put it. I think movements like open source and the ability to provide news without real corporate involvement are both more important than this. I would assume that women would get online, it is the perfect social medium, and it's not like women madly run away from computers.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
Don't ever, ever call my girlfriend a Chickclicker while she is in the room with you. You'd probably have to have your foot surgically removed from your mouth.
What he said.
I'd argue that rather than dividing by genitalia, internet users can be divided more by "users" and "producers". "Chickclickers" sounds to me like a marketable subgroup of AOL users, which is just a bunch of people who use the simplest possible software to socialize. It's not just a chick thing.
On the other hand, there are men and women out there who are working to produce more interactive, powerful, cooler interfaces, software and hardware, and by lumping women into cushy "intuitive" roles completely denies their contributions as peripheral and fluff.
They may have equal skills, but they choose to do very different things.
yeah like forward me stupid pictures of dancing hamsters, get rich quick schemes and forwards telling me if I don't pass it on my account will be revoked.
(I was kidd'n...don't get all pissy)
Apartment6
You don't come across many trolls like this...!
I actually know a few feminists who would do this. Of course, reasoned debate would be out of the question, so naturally the only thing to do is to silence the opressor! If you want to see it in action, go to http://www.spacemoose.com
I don't know if you're a real feminazi actually wanting this article removed, or if you're a brilliant troll (then hats off to you!) Either way, I couldn't have put it more eloquently how the net will be with more women online.
my 2 kopecks
Umm, must everything be political?
He likes games. He finds it a refreshing change to play against women instead of just against men, as their psychology of game playing is subltly different. And obviously he includes his wife in all the fun he has, game playing seems to be a shared passion for them.
Now how can playing games and having fun times with the one you love make you a savage? Much of the commentary here is political, but some people here just enjoy women's company, are happy for seeing more women on the net, and ignore the men vs. women controversy that you seem to have been sucked into, judging by that comment.
My thoughts
EDB
Whenever he attempts to write an article hit him in the head with the bottle.
Jon Katz always has to work in a mention about geeks and "poop culture"...
Dude, I'm a "geek", and I don't know what "poop culture" is, but I think I'd like to stay blissfully ignorant...
If I raise my voice, I too am thought of in negative terms and it happens frequently enough. The negative terms don't bother me all that much and I stand my ground. If I am wrong, the negative stance is reinforced and, if not, I get kudos for standing up. I see this same thing happen to women *but* I also see them cave far more often.
And I have to say that I'm sick and tired of hearing the "PMS/bitch" effect used as an excuse *against* guys... I've heard of women talked about in those terms and I've heard men talked about being a hardass and for the most part, its blowing steam and worth about as much.
If, in the business world, you are told to walk the walk and talk the talk, and the role you play is not one you like... THEN DON'T FREAKIN' PLAY THE ROLE! Men through out time have found it easier to take the easy way out too... And we don't see alot of them being viewed fairly highly. If you play dumb, expect to be treated like you are dumb. If you act like chattel, be prepared to be bought and sold.
As for ERA, laws reflect society, not vice versa. And I don't remember enough about it really but what equality would it grant that is not already (at least in theory) granted?
And women aren't a part of the environment, are they? Lord no, they are just helpless little darlings that have to be rescued from the big bad men... *sigh*
Is the problem that I know too many strong women? Women who are going out and taking the world by the throat and succeeding, not because of ERA or some outdated notion of oppression, but because they jump in with both feet, have opinions, express them, and are just in general GREAT people?!
I wanted to take issue with this comment that there is some magical subtle message that that the women have nothing worth saying.... If I (male, case you'd not guessed.. *smile*) am attempting to talk and somebody does try to talk over me, I don't in the least get the impression that I should shut up... Ignoring the pointed glances and rising volume, I'm game. I got volume just like they do. Or I'll wait a moment and then take my turn. The key here is that *I* have the self-assurance to stand my ground.
So the question becomes, is the problem in the environment or the way you are dealing with it?
PS: If the environment is really crappy, leave it... You're only doing a favor for yourself and everybody involved. You don't have to deal with it and the situation you left behind will at least get a heads up that things are rotten. Or they will decide you were wrong, but either way, you're better off. Done it myself...
"Equality seems to be one of those words in the English dictionary that stretches to please whomever uses it."
... yes, I know it's been said, however this article only focuses on one kind of woman and it is blatanly unfair that this one article may start another horrible misconception... that we really don't care how it works . No that's never ever true, but I'll tell you if you don't already know, there will always be women who care about materialistic things and nothing else and women who care about technical things and women who care about nuturing and women who appreciate all things...and it never ends there because you have women who are all three, et al or a mixture of several other things.
--- Nadine Edwards (a.k.a DeICQLady) ---
I'm happy that women are being recognized somewhere as a driving force
Besides, how can the ChickClickers really be considered geeks? Has there been a modified definition that the rest of us didn't know about? If so, I sure as hell didn't vote. I embrace them as women who appreciate technology, and if this is as far as we (the people in the know) will allow or minds to stretch to imagine a female in the role of a geek then you may as well tell me to may face that I belong in the kitchen so a can put my foot in your [place that really would hurt goes here...]
I agree with both DemiGodez and goliard that it was the creation of a stigmatizing characterization and the women who purely have other interests deserve better.
Nuff Respec'
DeICQLady
7D3 CPE
Yep, all sweeping generalizations are false.
What's a mail pseudonym? Including your E-mail in your nick? That would be a bad thing. Calling yourself "The_Envelope" or "^StampDude"? Sorry, I know it was just a minor error, but I couldn't resist.
Yay, finally someone well grounded in reality. I'm sure everyone here would like to meet more female coders, but lets face it, folks like you are few and far between. Only girl I know who even has a web page made it in Fronpage Express (still, she's learning and trying). Too many stupid guys with their mindless horniness are scaring the potential away, ruining it for the rest of us. I wonder if any trolls have considered how much damage their Portman posts may be doing. BTW, quick way to spot a female: Guys don't use ^_^ - Masqueraders take note.
I know this is OT, but where the heck did you get
that sig? Its the best!
Amen.
Once in a while there seems to be this sudden urge to compare men to women, be it playing games, being online, being "tech", etc.
Almost every time these articles are written by men who have the sudden urge to explain to the world they suddenly understand these strange beings called women.
No offense to the writer of this piece, but enough already !! Enough psychobabble, enough comparisons, enough stereotyping...
Just my $0.02
TheScorp
What we have learnt from John today...
1. Smart Girls had it tough in school too
2. Now they've set up their own websites and organisations to offer support to one another
3. This is an exciting development comparable to the proliferation of a democratic, adaptable and free software movement
Really
I'm just waiting for the "Why Babies Cry, Burp and Fart" article where John exposes the myth behind gas and quotes several babies who have got online and are hacking at the vanguard of the Free Software coalface...googoo gaa gaa
anyway, I always thought female geeks were called *cheeks*?
;)
c
Jon, are you related to Al Gore, the father of the Web? Maybe a clone in disguise?
Just wondering.
Your assertion that the web was created exclusively by men is at the very least as outrageous as Al's infamous comment.
Women have adopted the Web enthusiastically. Of course we make choices differently than men. Viva la difference!
Jon, and those who really believe women don't have an effect on the IT community, keep those shades on so you don't see us coming! If you're not old enough to know the famous song about boots being made for 'walkin, look it up, kiddo's!
Signed,
SheGeek,
aged 44
Network Engineer since 1985 and still having fun
I personally am skeptical of of the statistics, as they can be skewed to mean anything the user wants them to mean. I'm a geek female and proud of it, but even my women friends who don't know Linux from Unix from Windoze use computers and the net for everything from their jobs to web design to desktop publishing to IRC to online tech support, sometimes all at once. I'll have to send them the URL for chickclick; we'll have a good time dissecting the code and the utter lack of design sense an taste of whatever moron came up with this atrocity.
Death is but a doorway.
Here, let me hold that for you.
I was trying to make the point that not every female feels the need to act like they don't have a brain. Thanks.
kewl...maybe we can now have software that is pretty like a bacheolorette's bathroom.
In all seriousness cheers to the ladies~deri
It's pretty clear that you didn't actually read the article before critisising it (after all you already have your opinions so why bother?). Otherwise you would have realised that Jon Katz did not coin the term 'Chickclicker' but it was rather the name of a web site involved in the article.
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
-- How many girls were in your programming/math/engineering classes?
--When was the last time you took a date to the Star Trek convention? Maybe my view is off, but most of the "geeky" stuff that I like(Star Wars, Star Trek, Rush, math, science, computers) is not shared by the women I've dated.
I know there are girl geeks out there. They are just few and far between. I discovered a long time ago that I was far more successful with the opposite sex by cultivating a few "feminine" interests like gardening and cooking than to insist that my girlfriend be as into The Matrix as I am.
Every time you see something about grits or Natalie Portman, or some other lewd comment on this site you realize how clubby of an environment this is. Its tailored to guys, much like that treehouse that said "no girlz allowed" when we were kids.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
I really don't believe he was saying all girls are mindless gossipers on the internet, just that that's a lot of what female browsing is about. Most girls I know, even the ones with brilliant HTML and design and programming skills, still aren't quite educated about the workings of a computer, or even as to how they might retrieve an IP, what an IP is, etc. When you speak of a majority generalizations can be allowed. It's a truth that southeast Asia eats a lot of rice, not a stereotype. It's just as much the truth on the male end. We don't have BSB sites though, just porno and pro (haha) wrestling sites.
It is obvious that without women there would be no civilization. Go to your nearest college campus and walk in the boys dorm. Then walk in the girls dorm. The contrast is that between barbarism and civilization. The Internet is currently a boys dorm. Loud, naked pictures on the walls, a bit smelly, lots of insults and swearing. It's also more fun than the girls dorm, but hey, barbarism was always more fun anyway. That's why Mr. Christian mutinied and took the Bounty back to Tahiti. The point I am making is that the Internet has to grow up sometime, and women will push the thing into adulthood. PS, it was polite of Jon not to mention that women are pouring online now that it is easy enough for them to do so.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
No, we can't. We keep them for ourselves to make the ultimate nerd..(I mean: Geek and geek combined?) It is an insult just thinking about women as sex-objects only.
--Thinkcow, The Last of his Kind
- Jeremy Fuller
#irony on
Wow, women on the net ! They can do it.
What an amazing time we are living in !
What will be next ? Will they drive cars or
even get the right to vote for government ?
Everything is changing nowadays.
#irony off
BTW: I know english is a pressy asexual language,
but shouldn't we invent a term for female geek anyway ? The femaleness of the geeks was so much stressed
in the article, a special term might come in handy.
How about: geekness ? Or geekerine ?
Geeky ? (Not so good) And for our french friends
we need of course: geekeuse
You are the dot in slashdot !
Well, most of the girls in that 13-30 age group are looking sites about N'SYNC (or BSB, whatever they like) and gossip about their lifes and chat about those horrible groups. Maybe this is the main reason why I haven't see some female computer pros. They can live with Windows and their fan sites and ICQ (or AOL for that matter) Admit it ladies, I'm not trying to be dominant as a guy here, but I haven't blown away by females in computer field. Happy to be corrected, but Mad to be bombed.......
Well maybe I should say some women, ranging 13-20 (or higher, depends) do go to those kinda sites. Maybe I haven't look at the right places, but you don't see lots of female tech around. (Well occasionally I do hear them on the phone)
I think I forgot to mention that the girls in linuxchix.org is probably way better on Linux than I do.. I'm still a newbie *sob sob....*
You can sure call that stereotyping, but heck, that's what I find in the lower range group. Most ladies in that age group that I know doesn't even know the control panel in Windows well, not to mention Linux. Whenever I mention that they seem to be scared.... See what I'm saying here.
(For those of you who don't look at BSB sites and are good tech girls, please forgive and forget my comments)
I've been wondering why when I started my little thread with what I see in High School (I'll mention that next time I'll post, I don't like having a bunch of female programmers semi-flaming me.), the rebuttals are extreme!
First, read the wording. I do apologize that I use Most as the generalization for girls that goes online, but I never said all. I know that female pros do exist, but it's not very common among all the people that I know, except that my friend's mome is a sysadmin. I'm very happy to see women in the field of computers, and I'm not the kinda guy who says male rules (I may have an incline toward that way, but hey, who's completely neutral on something?) I don't know why I'm starting to get "Anonymous Cowards" start stuffing things into my mouth, which I didn't said, or at least not in the same magnitude.
I may have forgotten to remember, but the person why defined bug in computers is a female who found a moth in the printer, right?
The things that I see among the female users at wher I am (BC, Canada), an high school, is that I don't really find girls at the lower age group defined in the original article interested in computer tech. Everything has an exception, and there are female programming pros, linux pros (I haven't encouter one, but I believe there's one out here, if you're one, send me a pic,hehe =). But my point is that in my local area of all the girls that I've encountered, none of they are obsessed with technology, or at least have advanced knowledge compared to others. And that was the point.
I don't find any in my IT 12 class, and I can see some in my CCNA course, but they're not having extremely well progress and frequently asked questions.
I do wish to see some more girls interested in computers, cause I don't like the situation in Silicon Valley.. there's too much guys there.
There's all these "women's sites" out there, but far far fewer "men's sites." Does gender neutral mean male? Do women have special needs? And what's the deal with these women's sites anyway? I know I never got online to buy lipstick and bitch that my man won't take out the garbage. When will both women and men realize that we don't want to be coddled, and that the development of women-only areas of the Internet hasn't happened so women can feel safe, but so that women can find some space where they aren't condescended to?
I'm sick of being merely a misunderstood marketing phenomenon.
And they say music is simple theft, in techology -- has made to peacefire.org, a rock, might very much hostility to offer some levels in fundamental conflict with the kind of the land and wait for individuality and now have fiercely resisted getting himself over and have in any more than a series of the idea of it. I'm up till 3 a.m.
I'd like a Quake freak, I play it was reported that 46% of personal freedoms. So the world, job hunting and completely different from happening again. A rational middle and DVDs; download free music, movies, TV turns out of cultural expression. So are interested in and money and to the New York Times, the World Trade Organization, attracting a stomach disorder and many of sight and resistance. They believe we are going to do so. Read below for hate-mongers and women.com. The Littleton tragedy in cyberspace. There was a few of New York Times, USA Today, she says, she couldn't possibly afford to mow down music-sharing discussions.
The notion of the most people who can define the actions that marketers can make him someone else's property. Most important, and magazines -- I stopped buying books they get.
I think that it is wrong though to think that men are more savage than women, though. It's just a different kind of savageness. Women can be more subtle and vindictive and sometimes seem to think more long term about revenge.
Of course, that may be seen as High School behaviour too, just the female version. Perhaps the anonymity of the Internet takes away the feelings of adult fears and responsibility and turns everyone back into the kind of person they were in High School?
Now there's a terrifying thought.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Of course, logging in as AC protects you the next time you use a fictional character for everything, but also proves you are a low grade moron.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
How perceptive of you to pick up on it. Did you win a lot of spelling bees in grade school?
Of course, now you've crushed my lifelong ambition to be a world's champion speller.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
(And I won't even bring up the ones who are into shonen ai...)
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Erotica...lol...cute. :) I'm sure there are women who look at their share of pron, as you all seem to be calling it, but I think they are in the minority. I speak from the vantage that neither I nor any of my friends feel a need to view "erotica"....We're happy with the real deal. :)
3 Kat ^_^
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
You'll probably see a lot of comments about how many males (mostly teenagers) act immaturely towards females online, hitting on them and acting crudely and such, but women retreating to gender-centric fora doesn't contribute to equality any more than some ircluser whose first question is "age/gender/location?". I especially hate that question because it is wrong. People do not have gender, words do. Gender is a grammatical term, sex is the division of a species. People can be one of two sexes, male or female. The English language has three genders; masculine, feminine, and neuter. Gender is not synonymous with sex.
I should also say that it's not that there aren't girl geeks, it's just that they aren't represented by chickclick, et al. It would be ridiculous to say look at all of the guys who read maxim online and say they're not interested in the backend technology and therefore young men as a group aren't into technology. Webgrrls is huge. And, of course, I'm not the only girl who reads slashdot.
Finally, I think at 28 I'm a bit out of chickclick's demographic, but I'd still rather read their stories than the latest summer swimsuit diet & "how to please your man in bed" crap!
i wonder if everything i do / i do instead / of something i want to do more / the question fills my head - ani difranco
While I'm sure this wasn't intentional, the entire thing read like a long ad for chickclick.com. (Like the type of pseudo-study you see alerting you to a "revolutionary new hair removal system" or which an engineering firm will release to "educate" people about the market they're competing in.)
My answer to any stereotype is "I don't care".
People are different from each other, and at the same time, we are the same to some extent. I began use Internet and Web 5 years ago. I email a lot, for both work and personal purposes. Internet is my major information source, from reseach literature to movie schedule, from free software to gifts. I rarely chat, with anyone. But, I don't think communicating with friends over Net is a big deal. I don't think the tendency (if there is) to talking to another female makes girls unsophisticated. Personal chioces.
Regarding the fact (maybe) that "girls have less interet in science and technology, especially in middle and high schools", it has deeper cultural and historical reasons, far beyond Net. I came from a country with totally different context.I never feel I am not as good as any male or female intellectually. Actually, we are been taught to be as good as, if not better than, boys in math, physics, etc. Out of 29 college classmates(15 boys and 14 girls), 5 girls will get their PhDs in near future, all major in tech and science. So, to answer "how women aren't as interested in technology online", the traditional family structure, social expectation, stereotype, and others should on the list. The article of Katz made the old bias a little bit worse, not a lot, because almost all the magazines are covered by pretty girls with perfect figure (according to man's standard). It is sad, but it is a reality.
Please do not label, no matter it is us or yourself. Let's get to know you via you, Mr. And at the same time, I am living the way I like regardless of any stereotype. By-product of this may be that people who get to know me may give up their stereotype thinking.
Sorry, Mr Katz, but as a female in the age-group you're talking about (I'm 20), I think your article is extremely patronising.
Comments referring to "younger women's sites" and the type of activities that these "Chickclickers" (what a revolting phrase) use the web for are absolute drivel. Women use the internet (and not just the web) for THE SAME THINGS as men. This includes reading Slashdot, finding out detailed info about things we're interested in (which cover a wide range of things - computer-related topics, science, porn - yes there are girls who look at porn as well..., downloading pirated software, shopping for cds and books etc.). And loads of us have been here for more than the few years you talk about.
Maybe I'm being a tad unrealistic here, but I think that the generation of people coming through high school and college at the moment (in the US, Canada, the UK, Europe etc.) are all pretty computer literate. This means that there's a much larger proportion of girls who don't think computers are scary.
Admittedly, the majority of my female friends wouldn't be interested in reading slashdot, but that doesn't mean that they need "female"-type sites to cater for their interests. Some of my friends are interested in sports, they all have varied tastes in music, some are interested in science (ok, so I'm studying for a science degree, which possibly means that some of my friends don't fall into the category you were preaching about.), some just want to use email and look up things on Yahoo.
The point I'm trying to make is that in trying to find some sort of "cultural phenomenon", you're missing the point that actually the web caters for everyone. And the fact that the number of women using the web is increasing isn't particularly exciting or surprising. The web is now mainstream, therefore the general public are getting online. But basically, I don't think it's accurate to say that women and men use the web for different things.
Sorry, but I felt that this in addition to being extremely patronising, where it was accurate, the article did a brilliant job of stating the obvious. Yes there are women here. But we're all different. As are all you millions of men. I'm sure that technically-knowledgable men no longer make up the majority of male web users either. As all the stupid idiots out there start joining in, things are bound to change a bit, but it's hardly exciting or unexpected, really... I don't want sites that are geared towards women, please, and I don't think that even my less-computer-literate or less-scientific friends do either.
where did you bury her body?
To begin with, he talks about 'chickclickers' not being interested in the technology behind things, unlike males -- then says some of them are. Well, does anyone out there really think that all the males are into the technology either? Anyone who has worked a helpdesk can answer that question easily. I think Katz missed the real big picture, which is that gender-segregated media is showing up on the net in large quantities. It was always there, to be sure, but before many sites strived to be neutral. None of them are perfect, but here on /. (as an example) we seem to have a good deal of female contributors. Does that mean that women the world over are discovering and loving /.? No, no more than men are. The real big picture is that people can talk about their interests. Yes, there will be some forums (due to topic, or the starting crowd) that are female-dominated, just as there are some that will be male-dominated. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that women will flock to discussions about the possibility of "male menopause" and testosterone replacement therapy. Not to mention the point that one could find similar things in UseNet and e-mail lists years ago. It's just that now there are more people online in bulk.
Jon Katz always has to work in a mention about geeks and "poop culture" and how they just love it, whatever that is, though he never hesitates to explain what aspect of pop culture "geeks" like or why this makes them different from anyone else. And now we here that women online "focus less on pop culture, more on so-called 'traditional' women's interests -- food, fashion, lifestyle."
I don't understand this, and Jon's columns will be helped so much if he actually participated in the forums... I have to ask, isn't "food, fashion, lifestyle" simply other aspects of "pop culture"? Why isn't it the "pop culture" that Katz is constantly promoting?
-Dean
I give communities and publications billing themselves as "for women" exactly the same respect as I give communities and publications "for men", which is to say, absolutely none at all. (Disclaimer: the only time I feel sex-segregation makes sense is for sex-specific medical information.)
Bully for you if you want to be a "ChickClicker" or read "Maxim", but I'll think less of you either way.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I think the Net can be empowering for people because they have a choice whether or not to disclose their gender. These women-oriented sites are useful because they give scope for the flipside of this - that women can find other women with similar interests. However, I think there probably is a risk in making one's gender the central issue, that women will isolate themselves as a group within the Internet as a whole. *shrugs*
Congratulations Mr. Katz, you have successfully written an article about marketing. Online segregation? Ok, so sites like yahoo, slashdot, freshmeat, memepool, and any and all university sites are all so terribly male-centric that women can't even stand to view them? Please...you take a few examples of special interest sites and blow them into a three page story on a supposed increase in female internet users? Is this news?
The truth is that as more of the population of the world gets online, the internet using community becomes closer and closer to the actual makeup of the world. There is a rise in usage among every demographic EXCEPT for white males ages 15-30.
There are somewhere on the order of x^42 special interest sites, whether they be for grrls, geeks, jocks, porn meisters, music enthusiests, blacks, homosexuals...guess what? Their communities are all growing. I suppose that is good news for media hounds...after all, they can now write x^42 stories on x^42 different demographics.
Mycroft-X, who doesn't mean to flame, who does occasionally enjoy a Katz article, who did have the choice not to read the article, who did read the article, who chose to comment on it, and now that he has presented his opinion, expects to be moderated down.
It is one thing for your style to match your readership, it is an entirely different thing when everything the "journalist" writes agrees with his audience's dogma. Not all journalists are like this. I would hardly say Katz is to self-defined "geeks", as the Economist is to conservatives. First, the Economist attempts to report the news, not merely parrot a group discussions with flowery and overly wordy writing. Second, I would hardly say there is even one group that always agrees with the content the Economist generates. Third, I believe that the Economist believes what they write, I really can't say this for Katz as he changes directions too fast. Fourth, Katz, unlike the Economist, writes horribly. His language is far too flowery. It is not merely a matter of targeting his audience (despite what some may claim), his writing really has little in the way of content or direction; without his "flowers" it would be immediately clear that he really has nothing to say other than the party line.
The bottom line is that Katz has nothing to offer slashdot other than warm fuzzy feelings for those who call themselves "geeks". Believe it or not, there are journalists in this world who choose to make something more of themselves.
I'm not the type to mod you down simply because I disagree with you.
I have yet to read a single Katz article that I would call "journalism." But even if he published such a thing, does it matter? He tries to pass everything else off as journalism too. Without getting too involved in this, I certainly would not call the "Hellmouth" or "Wave" series journalism. They were essentially common knowledge with a hysterical reactive pro-geek undertone. No where did I find any honest to god analytical thinking going on there. It's simply rubbish.
Merely skipping may be a fine solution if you don't mind losing that forum. This is theoretically a community and, as such, I take some ownership of it. It is not as if what Katz does has no effect on the forum! When he is promoted, a couple things happen:
a) The more intelligent readership get turned off and leave. This effects me by leaving me with mediocre "community members" whom generally can't make a case if their life depended on it.
b) Because Katz's crap soaks up both bandwidth and mindshare, the other content suffers. In other words, if the powers-that-be have 2 or 3 Katz articles up, they have less interest in posting other information.
c) Katz propogates dogma and geek FUD. This approach to life leaks into the rest of slashdot.
I don't care if you argue per se. I care that pretty much all I see on slashdot is pointless arguments, which in turn detracts from slashdot. Although the slashdot owners may find they maximize their profits (arguably only in the short run) by focusing on these arguments, as a user I find I lose out because slashdot passes up on a rather unique opportunity. Namely, they have the mindshare of a large audience of technically literate people. They could do things with this, but they do not.
What you are essentially advocating is passivity. Why vote? Other people want it otherwise. Why make yourself heard, if most people want to think otherwise? Why fight for anything if you can just "move"?
See above arguments.
You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence. You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything. So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
I've seen a number of times where Katz articles (it is NOT articals) are up simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is a non-issue, that was just an example. The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact. Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read. Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Uh, Dogma need not be formally administrated. Look it up in your dictionary again. Katz promotes a certain mind set. Us versus them. Geeks versus Jocks. Individual versus corporate people. You name it. A number of people do take after him, I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time. If Katz is going to paint people or things in black or white, I want it to be the result of honest analytical thought, not a campaign to appease the disgruntled people of this world. There are parallels here to Naziim...
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
What you are advocating is my keeping my mouth shut because you happen to like Katz. You are being hypocritical at the very least. I see crap that I do not like, I speak out against it. I was taught to call a spade a spade. If Katz is manipulating many people on slashdot with formulaic efficiency, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
Obviously, each person can only speak from his or her own perspective. I and many others think Katz is horrible. We state what we think about him. That is what democracy is about, not keeping your mouth shut. In addition, I also attempt to illuminate Katz's "style", for everyone to see. Perhaps when they see the truth, then Slashdot will have an economic incentive to cut him off.
I never "just whine." I stated my personal opinion for you, so I could show you how Katz's crap affected me even when I chose not to read him. For others (e.g., in my root comment), I pointed out Katz's "formula for success". Not a whine, just strongly supported observation. You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up.
Your argument is "people like Katz". But, if we listened to you, there would never be any criticisms of him, and thus you'd never be able to get an accurate picture of who likes him. Contrast this with my requests/arguments/etc for slashdot to change it's content, which is not, and never was, chosen in a democratic fashion.
It is funny though, in your initial comment you were afraid to be moderated down for supporting Katz. Yet you seem to assert that Katz is supported by most people and that moderation is meaningfull. I don't think you can have it both ways. In my opinion, both are flawed...but I don't have time left. Bye.
You think shit is art, so I really don't think we have much more to discuss. Anyone who could call shit art with a straight face, could also call Katz a journalist. Likewise, if you can't spell "article", I can hardly expect you to know what a good article is. Furthermore, you are obviously quite well inside of Katz's target audience, so I'm wasting my words on you.
Assume for a minute that we have two parallel universes. In universe A, Adolf hitler writes regularly for slashdot, but you, being the only vantage point of interest, are allowed to "filter" all articles owned by Hitler. In universe B, Hitler exists but does not write for slashdot. Everything else (external) being equal, would you even attempt to argue that your experiences in both would be the same? Would you deny that Hitler shapes not only his own words, but also makes a substantial dent in the readership? That he affects arguments even in other forums? I hardly think so. No reasonable person could. Katz may not be as extreme as Hitler, but if you admit of Hitler's ability to affect others indirectly, you must also allow this for Katz. Thus, Katz does not operate in a vacuum. To say ignoring him and him not being present on slashdot are the same thing is simple foolishness. So I reiterate, he does affect me even when I ignore him.
Because he is a crappy writer in my opinion [not that this is just opinion], it is also entirely reasonable for me to think he affects me negatively whether or not I ignore him. In addition, I have seen evidence of this (some of which I ennumerated earlier). This being the case, I will do everything reasonable in my power to democratically push Katz out. I will not "force" him, I'll use persuasion. I'll argue. I'll mock him. I'll laugh at him. So long as Slashdot claims to be for free speech, this is perfectly within my rights. While you too are perfectly within your rights to yell back at me, do not think you are some how morally better for doing so. You have your opinion and "facts", I have mine.
As for the rest of this "argument", it is tedious, mindless, mistaken, and niggardly. I could refute (quite well I might add) each and every point, but why bother? I have no desire to get into war of the "cut and pastes." Since I suspect you'll have nothing more to add other than similarly tired arguments, I'll find something better. Good bye
So I made a typo, sue me! I can spell article accurately more than 5% of the time.
I'm truly sick of these Katz fluff pieces.
An influx of stupid women accomplishes nothing for us. Let's talk about the übergeek chicks.
Instead of mentioning the women who are breaking new ground with research or developing new technologies, you bring us stories of little girls talking about how Dr. Laura's mean or why "this hairstyle" is better than "that one". Give me a break.
Just about 51% of all people are females, it's not like they didn't have any way to talk to one another. Very few of us are geeks. The internet isn't providing women with anything different of a social nature than the lady's clubs of days gone by did.
Bring us the brainy women, bring us the tech-head women, this stupid chick stuff is making my head hurt.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Only because one of my lingering memories on the 'net is a flame war six or seven years ago I was involved in on soc.college.grad regarding tenure tracks and female faculty members who take maternity leave (a particularly hot topic in Universities in the early 90s). There were A LOT of women online then, in the pre-commercial 'net; so if a lot of the "early adopters" of the 'net among the general public happened to be male, that may have thrown things out of whack four or five years ago, but nevertheless women made up a sizeable portion of the early Internet that I remember.
:)
Incidentally, anyone have an archive of old soc.college.grad messages? It would be fun to go back and reread that discussion
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
*hic*
Who you LOOKIN AT???
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I'm tired from the night before, I bring up slashdot, and the first word I see... Dicklickers. Then I realize, oops, it's Chicklickers, sweet. To my dismay, it's chickclickers.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Whenever Jon says post-anything, take a drink.
Whenever he mentions the word "geek" take a drink.
Anyone have anything to add?
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
Interesting that Katz's story should be posted the same day that this article was front page news in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Maybe they're both right. The gist of both seems to be that women of all ages are using the net as a tool (which is as it should be) rather than as an end in itself and are turned off by the adolescent, masturbatory male geek culture......
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
which is how I first read that title.
If only Katz could write an article that entertaining.
- The statistics are interesting but, undoubtedly skewed.
- Women still don't get anything resembling a fair shake in U.S. society.
- Women with an interest in the sciences are under encouraged by the established scientific community and are often viewed as 'wierd' by other women.
I see this every day. My wife is a successful chemical engineer. She goes to professional meetings and seminars and is normally the only woman there. She tries to have an intelligent conversation with other women and many of them just glaze over ("That's interesting but I have no idea what you're talking about")If what this report seems to be pointing at is correct that will change over the next several years. Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to have a technical discussion with more of the women in my life. As a web project designer and developer I do some of my best work when I get beta responses from a broader audience.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I propose that a new term be coined: the KatzDot effect. It would be defined as that which elicits howls of protest from those knowledgable in a subject, but causes meek acceptance in those having less information. I suppose it would be similar to the word "pretentious", but incorporated into the definition would be the reaction of the listener.
first off, the Katz flame. Jon, women like to talk, the Net makes talking real easy and fun. 2+2=?. It was just a matter of time until a generation could grow up with tech they aren't scared of. Get over it. /., or at least she met me. I posted something that some idiot thought was insightful or funny, her friend (with the same nick, Hi Wah!) found my page, they talked like girls do, she sent me an e-mail, I sent one back, and I got to meet a good person. We met at a Linux show and had a good time. We should be going out again this weekend, barring excessive professional duties, (luckily she only lives about an hour away) and things look promising.
/.addicts in the crowd, keep posting, you'll meet someone.;-) (LOL)
--
second, I met a girl through
So to all you other
--
+&x
It was only a matter of time before women got on the net. So women are now on the net. It was only a matter of time.
And online, they make different choices than men.
O.K. State the obvious. Lets take a look at kindergarten play time. They boys play dominance games. Which boy is the strongest or fastest. The girls play cooperative games where there is no winner like house. (Disclaimer... I know this is a generalization but for the most part it is true.)
Women networking on the net. John, don't you mean talking. HMMM.... My sister spends hours on the phone. Now she spends hours on the computer. The only thing different is the that she is typing her communication instead of verbalizing it. The same thing for my mother. What they think is neat is that they talk to more than one person at a time.
It was only a matter of time that women would discover the net for one of their favorite past time. Gossip!
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Whee! I'm about to get modded into oblivion for defending Katz.
Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz.
Some of his journalism is stuff I don't care about. "Chicklickers," or whatever is not of any interest to me - I find discussions of "this is the new demographic" boring. So I skip them. Simple, easy.
I can even express why it doesn't interest me - My community is unlikely to attract these people, and these people are unlikely to be interested in me. If one day, every single Neo-Nazi went online, it wouldn't affect me in the least. My community would treat them with nothing but contempt, and they would have no reason to care about my community. Great. So when I saw the blurb, I skipped the artical.
FWIW: My community is the Worldforge Project.
Some of Katz's stuff is good - remember the Hellmouth series? I read stories like that. I read the comments on them. I enjoy them. You may not. Good - you're a smart individual, you can make sure you never see a katz artical again.
Two final points:
1. I like to argue. It's fun. Why do you care if I have fun?
2. Slashdot wants to make money. So what? Does it hurt you? Nope - if you don't like the banner ads, there's IJB. If you don't like katz, turn him off.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
There are wimmin on the Net, and not just nekkid ones. Be still, my beating heart....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
"Chickclickers", hmmm? I like it. We finally have a word for those girls who can't handle the "hostility" of public debate and argument: "chickclicker".
We already have a word for females who can dish it and take it: "women".
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
This isn't an important movement, this is the online equivalent to magazines like Sassy, Seventeen, and Glamour. Grrl and Chick sites--and I mean sites using those actual terms in the name, not a random slam--have stories about dating and boys and proms and music and clothes and makeup and teen angst and pretty much what you'd expect. This isn't bad; it's just a pop culture thing for a certain age. And it's certainly not a movement of any kind.
The interesting thing about women on the web is that they fall largely outside of the geek crowd. There isn't a preoccupation with abstract issues, like which operating system a browser runs under or the open/closed nature of various plugins. It's possible that the traditional, stereotypical geek on the web is shortly going to start looking very inbred.
I am a 24 year old web designer whose friends are 99% male, geeks (PROUD geeks), gearheads, musicians, artists, etc. All the 'sub-culture' folks. Sites like ChickClick nauseate me. No one I hang out with fits this girlie pigeonhole...although my mom comes close, she uses AOL IM to chat with her next-door neighbor. But let's leave my dysfunctional family out of this. :-)
I often call myself one of the guys, because it seems that I relate better to other guys than to other girls. That's on AND offline. It's something hard to swallow, maybe not 'pc', but building and maintaining the architecture of cyberspace is still a male domain. Jon may have been enforcing a stereotype but from where this geek chick is sitting, unfortunately he doesn't seem too far off.
If someone can show me statistics about how many women OFFline are chatting about clothes and how many are crunching code, I'd be willing to change my mind.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Go "get off" on women then and stop flaming geeks for "getting off" on 1's and 0's
I'm not flaming anyone for getting off on 1's and 0's. I'm a hardware geek, I wired up my basement and I'm working on the rest of my house now. And usually the people I'm talking about aren't geeks. I've gamed with other geeks, there is an entirely different feel to that kind of gaming than to random server gaming where you run into 20 llamas that like to spew lamer script swear words across the top of the screen through the entire game. Women gamers tend to avoid meaningless swear words. If they trash talk you they do it right.... And if you meet them on IRC or something after the fight they can talk to you without continuing the game trashtalk. Geeks can usually do the same thing. They can switch gears to talking about the best way to run cable through the walls or the best OS to use on my fileserver. But the adolescent male gamers that make up 70% of the gaming population continue to spew the "0wX0r3d b14tCh!!" crap no matter where you run into them. And it doesn't even matter who won the game, they will STILL cream obsceneties.
It's not that they lack social skills, it's that they lack basic manners.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
For the real assholes, I think they are just kids being kids, trust me though they will grow out of it. Try to stay away from #hAx0Rs and #grits on irc.
The sad thing about it is that these people go anywhere from 12 to 30, and they all act alike. So apparently they don't all grow out of it, and they seem to be in the majority! Just makes it VERY refreshing to play against someone that isn't a jackass....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Well way to go associating men with being savages. That's going to win you a lot of respect.
*glances over his post* Hmmm... I can't find the part where I said 'I'm trying to win everyone's respect with this post'. I couldn't give a flying fuck about whether people on this board respect me.... My observation is that a lot of men online, regardless of their age, come across as adolescent imbeciles. It's like as soon as they get away from that face to face contact they revert to the high school jackass mentality, the kind of person that laughs for 20 minutes at a 'fart' joke.
I tend to run into guys between the ages of 17 and 21 in real life, and most of them are still acting that way. I'm not claiming that this is a 100% accurate evaluation, I'm just offering my opinion. Women are just more amusing for me to socialize with than men....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Our web site is targeted to a "general" audience, namely college students and recent grads looking for jobs. Although we don't target men over women, we have found that roughly 75% of our users are male. Anyone have suggestions for evening this out? If it's true that 60% of web users are women, where are they?
Can your IM do this?
Play me, then.
Hehe I usually take on 5 people at once and I don't even like Q3:A. I'll show you who's the screaming hormone enhanced adolescent loser.
Do you like the rockets red glare flaming from your new asshole?
"I for one have to say that I prefer to play Q3:A against Females. They tend to be better trashtalkers with less lame gibberish, better players on average, and generally more fun to play with/against. All of the guys I play Q3:A against
come off as screaming, hormone enhanced, adolescent losers.
Hmmm... of course so do most of the guys I run into in real life....
Heck, my Wife beats the hell out of me at Tekken and any Racing game you can name.... "
Well way to go associating men with being savages. That's going to win you a lot of respect.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I'm not trying to be a troll, but I think the importance of some movements, and the timing of others is being mistaken both ways. First of all, the Open Source Movement, which seems to be becoming very similar to a Big Brother figure for the /. community, is impressive as well as cool, but it doesn't really define the internet. The fact that Microsoft web browsers still dominate the web surfing market proves that Open Source really isn't a big deal.
The Internet isn't just the web you say? You're right, but keeping in mind that we're talking about internet culture, society and culture are often defined by the majority, and the majority of people who use the internet surf the web using Windows 98 and MSIE 5.x. These people often participate in chat...but not our all too familiar IRC. No, they use AIM, ICQ and even web-based Java chat clients.
As far as this female online movement that our wonderful Jon Katz is speaking of (I'm actually not being sarcastic, I usually like Katz columns as found in /., but I do not appreciate the depreciation of this movement that Jon Katz is creating by giving it a new stereotyped name. I can call myself a geek, but I would prefer not to have Jon Katz refer to everyone as a geek. In the same way, girls who use the internet are not "ChickClickers" or "GeekGirls", but they are girls that happen to use the internet.
Also, female useage of the net is not a new phenomena. I've been speaking to the same four or five girls on the internet for almost seven years. Also, these girls aren't unattractive geeky people, they don't care about Open Source, and they could care less about the new Feminist movements or being part of the online "community". What they do do is carry on conversations with myself and a small group of our friends on IRC.
Women have been using the net as long as men have, and any implication that the stereotypically named female online community is becoming a major factor only NOW is merely perpetuating the idea that men are the only driving force behind technology, which also seems to be a point of Katz's column.
Please, Mr. Katz, do not insult my intelligence, and do not perpetuate this patriarchal crap.
--
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Alright, first off, look Jon Katz has to point out the horribly obvious, again. The I look at some of the post, and I knew I would find one female right off the bat who would complain about being called a chick. Can Slashdot become anymore stereotypical? I thought this was about news, not some pseudo-sexual affirmative action lameness coverage. Women have as much ability as men do, for everything. Sure somethings my be better suited to one or the other sex...but lets be realistic here. How about some more tech news?
Pretty much like your average slashdotter :-)
(slashdaughter? Hey at least that is a better word than chickclicker...)
Seriously: Call it a discussion among peers, casual talk, chat or simply gossip. That is what most people, sex aside, has used the web for since... well at least the ten years I've been online.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
JonKatz writes an article. (The article is large and time consuming, not a link which he got from an AC or someone else.) He actually reesearches and does hard work making an article which is, though I agree as not THAT interesting, informative and moderatly interesting.) Now, JonKatz posts his article. Immediatly, we see a gushing torrent of ignorant flame go towards him. All of the Posts which are anywhere near a high moderation rate are those which humorously, while angrily, correct JonKatz for writing his article. The purpose of Slashdot is to submit interesting news related to technology and to debate in an intelligent manner those news. It is NOT for making super-accurate on time stories. What is AMAZING to me is the fact that while Katz knows that he is gonna get nothing out of his hard work, (wasted time, flames) he still takes the time to provide you with a technology related story. Also amazing: People read his article knowing that they will only flame him for it, and they "hate" him. The intelligent user is the silent one who rarely posts.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
Frankly, I refuse to think of women as "chicks". Women are *PEOPLE*, and I expect the same respect in return, regardless of gender, socioeconomic status, race, religion (Hail Eris!), and shoe size. There aren't more "chicks" on the 'Net, there's more PEOPLE on the 'Net, and the proportion of male humans to female humans is evening out. To simply say "Oh, look, there's chicks on the 'Net" is degrading not only to female humans, but to all humans. But then again, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ewige Blumenkraft!
The above comment is CopyWrong (K) Erisian Entertainment. All Rights Reversed. Ewige Blumenkraft!
great, so now on top of everything else, i'm a "chickclicker". lovely.
Jon, women have been on the net for a long, long time. back in the day, you just didn't advertise you were a woman because a)it didn't really matter and b)it cut down on the "r u a horny girl?" spam.
these stereotypes are just rediculous. i'm not caring, nuturing, politically-minded, blah blah blah. i'm on the net looking for linux how-to's, or checking computer prices, or getting news, NOT looking for other women to connect with.
perhaps you would get your facts straight if you actually *talked* to a few women, instead of getting sappy quotes of cheezy web sites.
and, on another note: if i had meant to be the "goddess of hellfire" i would have written it that way.
Katz seems to contradict himself. Have I, as a board-certified female, grown beyond a mere interest in chatting about boys, or is that all I'm using the Net for? I identify myself as a programmer first. I am very interested in the technology and I go online to find information, not to shoot the shit about boys, hair, makeup and my feelings. I do NOT go online to join up with an ultraprecious clique scene. In fact, I've scurried AWAY from some of the chickclick sites where the cliqueishness got out of hand. John Katz captured the situation of geeks accurately enough, but he falls wide of the mark with women.
ChickClick is an annoying site, IMHO. If you base an entire article on what people say in its chat rooms, you're going to wind up with -- no, not reportage of a ground-breaking trend, but the opinions of a lot of annoying lusers. I mean, you could find plenty of sites where lots of men who don't really care about the technology behind the site congregate, and interview them and call it representative of men's use of the web. But you wouldn't. So why should women be covered any differently? If you *really* want to try to assess how women are affecting the tech world and vice-versa, you would have to talk to a lot more women. As you can see from the posts, a substantial amount of women don't see themselves fitting the stereotypes JonKatz described.
This is only the most blatent example of a weird trend I see in this thread. Apparently a woman can be smart and a geek, or anything else because she's not as smart. here's a concept. Plently of people don't do "geek" things because they aren't interested. Not because they aren't smart enough, just because they don't want to. Education and law are just as challenging and worthwhile fields as computer programming. And Law certainly isn't something that women get pushed into by social prejudice.
I'm concerned with the underlying assumption I'm seeing here that women are either going to be aultra techie, conversationally agressive and interchangable with hardcore male geeks, or they are perfumed little waifs who stay home reading The Rules and never have a conversation that doesn't center on clothes, hair or men. There are intelligent, engaging women out there who couldn't care less about the inner workings of their computers.
And just to totally rant, I don't see software eng's having any room to talk about the "soft" fields. What do Computer Science, Christian Science and Creation Science all have in common? If you have to say "Science", it probably isn't. Lawyers can't write code, you can't write legal briefs, and there's no need to put one over the other in terms of difficulty unless you can do both.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
about 2 years ago, at 1 AM I was stuck at Bell Mobility fixing some webpages it was late, lonely and I felt tired so I logged into this chat room and had a conversation with a female who in fact appeared to live in the same city as me (surprisingly enough since the chat room was located on another continent) and who also liked to go rollerblading, so I got her phone number and called her up. Next day we went rollerblading. (In fact as I found out later, it was her second week on the internet when I found her!) ;)
of-course I taught her not to give her phone number to anyone on the web again
You can't handle the truth.
Real users have girlfriends, and don't care about IRC terminology because they are secure in their knowledge.
You can't handle the truth.
In fact, it was most defenetly an asp (active server pages) based ROOM.
You can't handle the truth.
I think the major point is that there are different roles of the net and different demographics in those areas.
The number of women has increased, although I think the figure of 60% of total is probably badly researched...
Anyway, before the 'chick' revolution there have always been community sites and corners of the net where men and women have been in equal and unequal numbers.
True, technical sites tend to be more male oriented, but this is more endemic of culture in general and the way in which women are marginalised in tech/sci culture...
Basically a couple of womencentric sites are not new and are not particually origonal.. Although they are a stp frward from concepts such as 'handbag.com'...
Probably the reason it is getting prominance now is that .com companies are looking for new areas to market as people cotton on to the fact that half of 7-9/10 internet companies bomb in the first year due to sheer unorigonallity and the latestcraze it promote the 'chick' market to try to get a new spin on things...
Good luck to 'em, but to say that it is a new phenomena is to denigrate the work of the women before and even more so the communities which have been balanced for years.
Working for the (other) man
Most men are immature and act like jackasses (myself included in this), but what is comes down to is that socializing and communications are nothing more then learned skills, the same ways x86 asm and C++ are learned skills.
Anything in this world worth learning, (wheather it be Perl or the ability to make small talk) comes at a price. Do you think Alan Cox just woke up one day and said "Dam I got some mad kernel hacking skills", did you just wake up one morning and say "Dam I got some mad HCP (Human Communication Protocol) skills"
If you REALLY are dedicated to learning something, others things have to take a lower priroity. If I wanted to learn Nuclear Physics and was really into learning everything about it, some of my time dedicated to computers would have to be cut short to allocate more time for Nuclear Physic, this to me would be a BIG trade off, since I really enjoy about computers. But say, for instance I have ALL this time I perceive as "wasted" by "meaninglessly" watching TV, I could cut this short, giving my time in learning about NP.
But in this explain above, when my freinds start talking about the XYZ show on Fox last night, I will be totally lost because I didn't watch TV last night. I didn't think it was important, so my freinds view me as LAME because I think that time is better allocated to NP research.
The same goes for anyone, if I (or anyone else) feels that their time is being wasted by socialing in RL with freinds, then they are going to "cut" this time down so more time is allocated to something more simlauting to them (CS for example). The good side, they become more educated in the nature for 1's and 0's, the bad thing, is that they don't develop socially or emotoinally and their communications skills will be decreased to an immature/jackass state to very awkward and creepy.
It comes down to "what gets you off". Some people are more acceptable to emotional simuli while yet others are very acceptable to intellectual simuli. People will gravity towards what "gets them off". If "small talk" can just "make your day", then good for you, get off on that. If "quick shell script hack" can just "make your day", then good for you, get off on that.
But the thing people have trouble understadning, is what gets you off, may not get me off. Just because someone gets off on intellectual simuli oposed to emotional simuli does not mean they are a bad person, it does not mean they should be riducled and humalited, just because they like 1's and 0's more then small talk doesn't mean they are a bad person and should die, it just means they are into something other then yourself.
>>"Women are just more amusing for me to socialize with than men...."
Go "get off" on women then and stop flaming geeks for "getting off" on 1's and 0's.
(and i think there is a limited to how much you can say "get off" in one post without being overaly offense, sorry my lack of the HCP left me without an appoirate word to use)
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
No, actually, I was pointing out that if he called my girlfriend that to her face, she'd kick his ass. I'm not "pointing out his faults", I'm pointing out that one of the terms he used (over and over and over) is a sexist comment that would piss off many women.
Maybe I should elaborate a little on why it would piss my girlfriend off.
A> Some women don't like being called a chick.
B> He groups every single female ages 13-30 that use the internet into 1 group.
So, I realize that ChickClick may be a bright, cheery, postive site but the name is still offensive to some people. I'm not bashing John Katz, just the name ChickClicker.
kwsNI
So because some people call themselve that, every female online between the age of 13 and 30 are now ChickClickers? All I was pointing out was that there are some people that would be really infuriated if they were called that.
kwsNI
Are you surprised ?
Mr Katz is, and always has been, billed as a 'journalist'. This is what journalists do. They find an audience, and write the type of prose that the audience will pay for. This is entirely consistent behaviour.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
i think as a general rule most of the people who are beginning to use the web don't know much about computers. Most of the people i know who started using computers as the trend appeared can't do much other than turn on their PC and use IE/games/MS Office. Katz makes the statement that women are coming onto the internet and not really caring about what runs it(or something akin to that). I don't think that statement is limited to women; Its people in general. Look at the new generation of people on the Internet. Most of the people i know don't know a whole heck of alot about computers, the internet, technology in general. They are more interested in what the technology can do for them. My father doesn't have a clue what to do other than startup AOL, and go searching for stuff on architecture. My uncle just goes searching for stuff on car racing. They are just taking what they want to do/learn about into a new medium. They don't care how that medium works(neither have a clue what a web server is nor do they care). On the note that women use the internet as a forum to talk with people, so do men! most of the teenage guys i know who use the internet(just as with teenage girls) use it to talk with friends using AOL(or AIM). They also use it for researching papers, and looking for information about topics of interest, but mainly for communicating with friends. I think much of what Katz said may be true of a number of women who have started using the Internet but it is not exclusively so. -Aaron
I think this sort of thing is a good idea in the long run...not because of the gender or sex issue so much as the fact that we're now getting another whole segment of population online that before, for whatever reason, wasn't as interested in going on the net.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm glad men and women are finally coming onto a more level playing field; namely, the Internet. Regardless of what you call them, female geeks are welcome out here--I would like to think that at least the geeks aren't sexist on the net.
"I haven't lost my mind -- it's just backed up on tape somewhere."
A few months ago, my boyfriend introduced me to Slashdot. Since then I've been reading some articles off and on, but never felt compelled to post a comment, until now. I just thought I'd make a statement on behalf of the women who aren't "Chickclickers".
:)
;)
I am a 3rd year Computer Science student at the University of New Brunswick, Canada who has a 3.5 GPA. I was an A student in high school who graduated with high honours and received $2000 in scholarships. (Therefore I don't feel the need to "hide my brain" in school, as one woman said in the article.) I have been programming for approximately 6 years now, and therefore have majored in Software Systems. I don't really like the stereotype women get from this article. I have no interest in these "female" sites where women go to talk to other women and look for clothes and beauty products. I am also not on the net to develop web sites with pictures of naked men (legoboy), so don't worry.
Instead I am on the net to increase my knowledge of computers. I enjoy programming, web design and creating graphics. I am also trying to increase my knowledge of hardware. The net helps me find information on all these things. I do enjoy gaming, yes, but I am not more interested in "the Net to find other women, to have some say in issues they care about, something often lacking in their(my) offline lives(life)." And nothing is *lacking* in my life thank you... except maybe money.
So anyway, I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but not all women are as described in Jon's lovely article.
Thanks, from one of the female Slashdot readers... I can't be the only.
This whole "Look! Women can do it, too, and we are!" bit is so tiring. Women have been given enough of a start to reach "equality". Enough with the comparisons -- men and women are different, period. That's why we act different, on the internet or otherwise. Use the opportunities you've been given and quit making a big deal of it when you do.
I find this story offensive to all women. I demand that it be removed. I really wish some people would learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. You can't find a story offensive to all women the same way you can't find a burrito too spicy for all Americans. Unless of course there's some sort of borg-like universal instant communication channel all women have, in which case, I apologize. And by the way "Chickclickers" was coined by a woman, its in the article. Honestly, I don't find this article the least bit interesting, but if you're going to flame it at least do it for the right reasons, like maybe content not language.
Most of the non-female geared sites, like /., don't care what gender you are and are just there to give information.
This is just a observation and if you find any male gear sites please mail me.
I just went to chickclick or whatever its called, and i had a look at their poll (use?), Which of these retro babes had the best hair? Farrah Fawcett - I'd like to fly away on those wings.. Mary Tyler Moore - iron or not, it's worth it. Pam Grier - simply bad ass. Mia Farrow - no hair should be longer than an inch. Lame or what, I guess that's the equivalent of slashdot's geek-powered polls, ah, personally farrah fawcett really does it for me, although were it a guy making the poll, i think P.Leia would have made it.
-I can only program my video,ahh, I am not a gook, but a joook -The World is a theatre of the absurd
They may use the Internet, but . . .
What is the ratio of men to women that use it for their daily pr0n needs? Certainly there are some women who are using it for that role, but probably not enough. It's unfortunate that the Internet is being so grossly misused for this "business" stuff and this "life enchancement" stuff.
Sure, maybe Suzy Q can find out how to contact her congressman, where the local Red Cross is or what the gross national product of Madagascar is, but little Johnny can point and click his way to an abundance of naked flesh faster than you can say "grab your peripherals".
It really is a good thing that more ChickClickers as Jon so quaintly labeled then, are pouring onto the Net. Anything that improves the chances of Joe Six-Pac's IRC cybersex being with a real flesh and blood female is a good thing.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I for one have to say that I prefer to play Q3:A against Females. They tend to be better trashtalkers with less lame gibberish, better players on average, and generally more fun to play with/against. All of the guys I play Q3:A against come off as screaming, hormone enhanced, adolescent losers.
Hmmm... of course so do most of the guys I run into in real life....
Heck, my Wife beats the hell out of me at Tekken and any Racing game you can name....
Anyhow, I'm straying from my point, my point is that it's a good thing that more females are getting onto the net, it means I'll have more victims to frag...>:)
Valis
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Looking at these sort of sites will not give you a full perspective of women online. The women you find in female oriented sites are not representative of all women, they are representative of women who are go out of their way to do women-only things. However, they are the only people online who you can reliably identify as being women. Most women online go to the same places that men do, and do the same things that men do. I hang out on slashdot. I buy books from amazon. I (and probably most women) have no desire to visit any site called ChicksClicking.com or whatever it was.
In real life, the only place my gender makes any difference is in my love life. On the internet, it makes even less difference. Most of the time people can't even tell what gender I am. Is the fact that (gasp) half the world is female going to wildly change the online world? Nope. Hopefully the gender-bias of the available pron will change to accommodate us ;) Maybe we can buy bras online. Whoopee!
Is online gender segregation inevitable? For the short run, almost certainly. But a Web site that focused on technology along with social and cultural issues and which offered humane and rational chat forums might fuse the two cultures
What a lot of rot. Slashdot is a prime example of a site that focusses on technology and also (technology related) social issues, like whether women are on the web or not. We seem to have what are fairly close to humane and rational chat forums here. And guess what? Lots of us are women! We don't segregate ourselves. Thus you don't notice us. You just assume we are all men. And it _doesn't matter_.
"Five years ago, there were not that many women on the Internet," Carol Kovac, a vice president at the Watson Research Center at I.B.M. told the New York Times recently.
This statement is true, but there were not many people at all on the internet (relative to today).
I also wonder about what portion of the demographic is made up of the retired community. It seems to me now that my grandma spends more time surfing the internet and writing email each day than I do.
-ShelbyCobra
Living life in the right side of the s-plane
It would be interesting to learn the what percentage of Slashdot readers are male and which percentage are female. I tend to assume comments are posted by men unless there is distinct indication that it was a female. This is probably a response conditioned by our culture, but I think it also comes from the fact that men make comments that give away their gender (like comments about gays, sucking nutz, etc) far more often then women.
I use the web for getting computer tech info. I installed FreeBSD on my desktop computer at home and have used the internet to find help when something doesn't work properly. I also use to the net to get mp3's and song lyrics, and find quick info on any topic that pops into my head that I hadn't thought about before. I have generally avoided web sites focused on women because they tend to be heavy on romance, shopping, and beauty which I don't need more info about. Get way more than enough of that sort of stuff from TV.
The article points out that women have a voice on the net which I find to be true. In high school and even in the professional workplace environment, I find that my voice is drowned out. Many times when I start to speak, some male will start talking over me, and if I continue talking, he will start shouting. This subtly gives women the message that they have nothing worth saying. (And yes, I have spoken to my employer about this, but that has changed nothing.) The net is unable to shout over my voice. Many time, the net may not realize that I am a woman.
As for being called a "chick", it is am improvement over "girl". I guess. I don't respond to either, anyway.
Ok...I am female and I chat a lot...I admit it. But interestingly enough, I tend to talk to mostly guys. Sure, I have plenty of girlfriends online but I easily know WAY more guys and we chat quite a lot. So, guys don't chat, huh? Then who am I talking to every night? ;)
:) LOL Call me wacky, I guess. Lighten up people...power is taken out of "offensive" terms by making light of them. Just don't let it get to you and it has no power.
:) Hehe.
The joke about the furvor over using the term "chick" is that I even use that term sometimes.
Yes, I like to chat, I also like science, and gaming, and tech stuff. Why do we have to label people? If you labeled me, I guess I would be a geekette. LOL ^_^
Overall, my point is that gender roles and interests are more blurred than they used to be. Some girls like the same things that guys like. Big Whoop! Am I a freak or something?
Ok...that is my two cents. Ciao!
3 Kat ^_^
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
It is because women and men are different that I value their viewpoint and contributions.
Yeah, women and men are different because people are different. By no means do I object to more women online, but this overblown sense of importance gets aggravating quickly.
I must admit that I really fail to see the point of making such a distinction between men and women online. While there's certainly some benefit to having certain discussions with people of your own gender, these communal feminist (for lack of a better term) websites really don't help anything, in my opinion.
You talk about the problems of having just guys hanging out and how mailing lists would benefit from a more equal distribution, but that's not what this solves at all. You end up with women (and a good deal of them adolescents in formative years, mentally) who are coming online just to congregate with other women.
Why exactly can't people just get online and just find some interesting fora to browse? Must everything in our damn culture be about gender? Can't we just once treat women online just like anyone else?
You'll probably see a lot of comments about how many males (mostly teenagers) act immaturely towards females online, hitting on them and acting crudely and such, but women retreating to gender-centric fora doesn't contribute to equality any more than some ircluser whose first question is "age/gender/location?".
Really like what? Not all of slashdot is his target audience, he appeals to a certain faction very very consistently with the party line. As for the remainder, he does his best to inspire dislike...because that fattens the powers that be too. Katz is like the "new world" liberal equivelent of Rush Limbaugh, a small percentage adore his every incoherant babble, the rest tune in because they are drawn to it by anger, the urge to fight, yell, or what have you.
Well first, I think Katz is absolutely the bottom of barrel insofar as "journalism" goes. Secondly, just because the majority of journalists today are worthless hacks, does not mean it is acceptable. Nor, for that matter, does it mean that Slashdot should foist Katz's crap on us.
I find this interesting in a way too, but I'm not suprised at all. If you look at the number of comments on Katz's articles, his "articles" easily draw the most comments of any other type of article or author when you average them. In other words, it can be reasonably assumed that Katz articles generate the more banner ad impressions (read: money) than any of the competing alternatives. Even though only a percentage of those comments praise him, the remainder of slashdot appears to be drawn to his stuff anyways (to flame, to argue, to play "devils advocate", etc.), and pack his pockets just as well (if not better) than his fanatics.
The fundamental problem with Katz boils down to an even more fundamental problem with Slashdot. That is, that while Slashdot claims to be "news for nerds", it is really "arguments for people who like to argue about stuff 'nerds' are interested in." Most of the 'content' on slashdot is arguments, there is little "usefull" content on slashdot that I would call usefull. By usefull, I mean, say, technical questions, like how to install/modify/hack a linux iopener. But these kinds of articles are rare, and they don't (or rather can't) draw a consistently large audience anywhere near Katz's numbers. Most everything on slashdot is of political nature. Since most people in this world are idiots (including slashdot), we have never ending useless arguments for the most part. Those who wish to cling to their absurd beliefs will do so generally, irregardless of the strength of the opposing arguments. To boil it all down, Katz is numero uno when it comes to drawing the arguments. He is slashdot's reason for existence personified.
My objection to this, of course, is that Katz is absolutely the most meaningless. The fact that he is even called a journalist is insulting. I suppose some part of me hopes I can get the "slashdot juniors" to wake up and smell the coffee. I want them to realize that they're being played. Perhaps then, slashdot will have a financial incentive for turning away Katz. Until that time, well I can argue too... =)
Women on the internet can only be a good thing. There is nothing worse than a ton of guys hanging around and creating the equivalent of the nasty bachelor pad with 7 roommates type of environment.
It is because women and men are different that I value their viewpoint and contributions. I have a feeling that even the average open source mailing list would have an entirely different feel if the gender ratio were closer to 50/50.
It is up to us long time male denizens to make everyone feel welcome in our little communities. I think it would make everything that much more interesting.
Then again, if you browse this thread at -1 I bet you'd find a different feeling entirely.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
C'mon, Jon. Can't you ever get a point across without stereotyping?
It's not enough to refer to every single person on Slashdot as a 'geek', as if we were all cut from the same cloth and were the exact same person, but now you're branching out. Now, you've taken women who use the Internet and lump them together as "Chickclickers". Not only is the name vaguely insulting, but you're once again assuming that you can simply lump a group of people together under a name and it'll all be good.
People aren't all the same, Jon. Drop the stereotyping, and maybe your points will be better heard.
One thing I've noticed over the past couple years is that just as in the "Real World", both women and girls online are rediculously compulsive chatters.
I have a teenaged sister who will pretty much spend every last spare minute she has chatting online, and most of her friends do the same. It's definately not considered geeky any more among a fair number of the younger people here, anyways.. More of a replacement for the 3-way daisy chain phone calls with 15 different people on the line. (Although you'd think they could visit each other in person when they aren't at school or a party.)
What is more interesting to see is the older females in this group. The ones in the late 20's and early 30's who are not online for recipes, but to chat. I'm sure it's far from normal, but siblings of two different people who work for me are both addicted to online chatting. One ran (note past tense) a quiet craft shop, which now closed until further notice so that she can stay at home and chat. Could the woman not do this on a computer at work, even? The other one quit her retail job to do same.
I don't really have any opinion on this behavior, and I neither condemn nor condone it.
It's just... interesting.
------
Following line: Good example of Fair Use.
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Well I do question the figure of 60% of the users online being female but I do agree that there are a lot more of them around. My girlfriend uses my computer more then I do sometimes. When I told her I was having DSL installed she started drooling. I think we do need a influx of females to the online community.
[warning: metaphor ahead; take with a grain of salt] It's kinda like the frontier towns. You have a largely male oriented society where you have shootings (flames), range wars (flame wars), bars (hostile chat rooms), brothels (you figure it out), and so on. Then people start bring there wife and kids in from back East and the wives decide to clean the place up and all of a sudden you have a modern city where the bars and brothels and ect. are pushed back to the fringe.
And lets be honest here. If we ever want the media and society in general to take us serious (beyond IPO's and cracker stories)then we need this kind of influence. Personally I welcome it. There will always be the rough parts of town if you want them. There will also be the people who lament the good ol' days but most will be happy and just ignore those.
So we are in a time of change and we need to decide what kind of net we want. Do we want a city that's quite and nothing ever really happens or do you want a city like Moscow where it's crazed, the police are on the take and the Mafia generally runs everything? I vote for something in the center of those two.
Living in a college dorm, I see all sorts of interactions between women and the net; from the girls who can't check their own email to those who use supercomputers to check it to those who write their own email programs.
Sometime at the beginning of the year, my friend's roommate brought a girl back to their room who looked at my friend's computer (a work of art, caseless with all sorts of wires sticking out) and said, "eew, there's too much computer stuff in this room for girls." I was enraged and embarrased by her reaction, but it is a disgustingly common one.
I had spent hours installing Linux on my computer in good part to show that I could; to provide an example that girls and computers are not mutually exclusive.
Every time I need to do some programming work, though, I have to ask guys about it, because the other girls don't know; yesterday I had to show one of the compsci majors how to use TeX.
this is probably just confused rambling, but I've got to go to class now.
What's that you say? Some large group of people with some common interests are online? Why, it's a revolution! The whole face of the internet is about to change!
A word for the wise: Open source is a trend, and arguably a movement. Women are NOT a trend.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
That's great! Maybe it means that all those "women" in the assorted chat rooms may actually be female now?!!!
- Fe-mailer
- Witch
- Script-gurlies
- Mamallama
Come on, Jon, there are so many girlie fields that you (and probably I) have left out. Why must you only focus in on the chickclickers? Please, do some more research next time. You might find a much more diversified group of stereotypes to choose from.Women use e-mail, and why shouldn't they have their own type of e-mail? Today, more and more women are fe-mailers, using one of the oldest of mediums to spam other women.
We can't forget the trolls, now can we, but troll is so male. Let's acknowledge all the women on Slashdot trying to piss off other women with their own title (and moderation status, Rob?).
With the rise of women online, more and more are turning to the annoying methods of their male counterparts in an effort to annoy the patriarchal IRC server admins.
These are girls who are new to the whole gaming experience. They're not very good, but all the other llamas tend to congregate towards them because they are women.
a) Find Receptive Audience. Slashdot "geeks", yes!
b) Periodically monitor their changing, but consistent, gripes and hopes. "society", "jocks", "corporations", "open source", etc...
c) Write flowerly articles fully agreeing with them. Where possible, offend all those who otherwise would not read articles.
d) Rinse, Repeat.
...If you notice everything Katz writes essentially fits this model.
Opinionated persons between the ages of 1 and 100 are pouring online. They're at the heart of the rapidly growing movement of bullshitters onto the Net. Political correctness aside, men, women, sheep, and bullshitters are not alike, at least not online. They may have equal skills, but they choose to do very different things. Along with Slashdot, Open Source, Linux, Napster, JenniCam, the Hampster Dance, and Mahir, bullshitters may trigger another political, media and social transformation in cyberspace.
There are few reliable numbers on Net use by bullshitter, but I'm going to just guess and say that the majority of Web users -- possibly as high as 99% -- are now bullshiters. And younger bullshiters, especially those between 13 and 30 who are 3l33t, are the fastest growing single demographic online.
"Five years ago, there were not that many bullshitters on the Internet," Jon Katz, who wants to be a columnist when he grows up and a regular contributor to Slashdot.org, told #phuzzybunnies on IRC recently. "Today, we're on there and using it for everyday things, like flaming on about Micro$oft and surfing for porn."
"$ BiLlZ gAtEz SuX mY DiCk" Katz added repeatly for the next 10 minutes.
Contrary to any lingering stereotypes, they aren't the least bit wary either of groping technology or anything else that crosses their paths...
George Lee
You can't make any generalizations about *all* women based on the preferences/behaviors of the women who seek out online female communities. That's just sloppy; you might as well make generalizations about *all* men based on, say, those who like pro wrestling---it's tempting, I know, but it'd be wrong. I really love how all these "rah, women!" articles written by men wind up being just as patronizing as the usual shit. Is "women aren't smart enough to get online" really all THAT much worse than "women only get online so they can find other women to discuss knitting and childcare and fashion accessories with"?
So, what am I, Mr. Katz, chopped liver?
Frankly, I am a more than a little tired of being characterized as "healing", "community building", "peace making", "more cooperative" or any of the other bullshit which boils down to "Girls is nice cuz girls is motherly and nurturing".
I have many fine characteristics, some of which may even pertain to making the world a more touchy-feely place. But, by all reports, my justification for use of oxygen is my finely honed ability to hose idiots down with verbal napalm and a preternatural ability to draw lightning -- attributes in which I have considerable pride.
(Of course, that I should even have to justify my offense in this day and age is itself irritating.)
Mr. Katz, maybe you wish to make the argument that there is a subculture which consists of females of a certain age with certain commonalities of behavior -- instead of straying over the line of bigotry into claiming they are a subculture. i.e. "There's this phenomenon called the 'chickclickers', and it's growing like mad, and here's who they are and why this is interesting" instead of "teenage girls going online now are called 'chickclickers' and are like thusandsuch and will change the net because girls are different than boys."
It is one thing to say "there's this subpopulation with the following interesting traits", and something else to say "female people of this age range are characterized in this way", or even worse say "because they are female they will be thusandsuch way and do thusandsuch things".
It's the fact that you attribute traits to them because they are female (when there's counterexamples running around) and the fact that you conceive of all people of a certain age/sex as having a culture/behavior in common which is gross.
Knock it off.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
I'm female, 24, and a programmer. I have been programming since age 7. I am deeply interested in techology -- programming, software and hardware. It's not easy being female and a programmer and the people who are the worst about it - the most likely to assume I know nothing - are other women! I would never use the Net to find other women.
Katz is right, it is still often difficult for young women to show open interest in science and technology, especially in middle and high schools. Why add to it by writing an article about how women aren't as interested in technology online?
In my world, I don't care if I talk to men or women online. But I am concerned that women don't become "empowered" by isolating themseleves on the net. Most people who make software are guys. If you can't live in that world, you don't stand a chance of changing it.