[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: gender issues

[Taran Rampersad]

The thin ice appears. Very well. If it were a matter of affixing blame,
we wouldn't be having this discussion because that is simply not the way
I do things. I was making a point, and I have made it. I don't know why
we're here, but I won't run from the discussion.

Georg C. F. Greve wrote:

> || On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:49:53 -0500
> || Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> wrote: 
>
> tr> It is *another* conversation.
>
>Yes, exactly. 
>
>That is why it was only briefly mentioned in the discussion as an
>example of how these things would look in another conversation and
>context. No comparison if issues was made.
>
>
> tr> For my part, I think that bringing gender equality into it,
> tr> *especially* in the WSIS context, is not only irrelevant but
> tr> misleading. 'Gender equality' is a completely separate issue -
> tr> and comes with it's own challenges. For example, someone from the
> tr> UN 'Global South' who is female has more voice than someone from
> tr> the Global South who is male.  That's not equality. That's a
> tr> method to try to deal with imbalance which, inadvertently,
> tr> creates imbalance.
>
>It occured to me that it is somewhat ironical how you seem to prove
>Beatriz right by contradicting her.
>  
>
How have I proven Beatriz right? I have not contradicted her. I have
made a point which she may concur with. That's not contradiction.

>Leaving aside Free Software for a moment and considering the gender
>aspect, it is interesting how from the above paragraph it seems to be
>the womens fault that there are so few of them to be found in so many
>circles that some intervention is needed to come closer to a 50/50
>situation. 
>
>Why not blame the men who have filled up the other 80% of the slots?
>  
>
I'm presently in Trinidad and Tobago. All WSIS Civil Society
participants so far have been female and from the Gender Caucus. They're
both women. Should I blame the women for filling 100% of the roles? ;-)

I've noted to both participants - humorously - that it's odd that both
representatives are of the Gender Caucus, are female... and nobody else
from Trinidad and Tobago is involved in Civil Society. Certainly there
is some irony. But they are good people who I have healthy agreements
and disagreements with, because we do consider ourselves equal (at least
I hope we do). But the interesting result is that when it comes to the
WSIS, women of Trinidad and Tobago have voice and the men do not. Would
the creation of incentives for men to participate in Trinidad and Tobago
help? Suddenly, we're looking at a role reversal.

Do not count me, because I'm not a formal part of a group and I'm in the
process of leaving Trinidad and Tobago anyway. Thus you may consider me
an outsider.

But let's talk about the blaming of men. While there are circles which
are male dominated and are not as welcoming to women as they should be
(some cases of stronger rather than weaker), creating positions in such
cases for women solves a problem of numbers - it does not solve the
problem. If an employer is told that s/he must hire 50% women to meet a
quota, should we not expect that there be 50% men as well? And wouldn't
the employer expect them to work together? Yes, of course.

Unfortunately, with limited positions in working groups and committees,
many selections cannot allow 50% representation. This goes for Global
South and Global North, male and female. It's a very complicated
problem, and not one that I would make light of. Oddly enough, and
within context, the WSIS PCT has just suffered it in the WGIG. And
there's been a lot of noise made about this. So if anything, Beatriz
seems to have been contadicting herself and I simply pointed it out.

>I do not like any preference and quota rules any more than you do, but
>we have to realize that sometimes things won't change unless we try to
>actively push in a certain direction.
>  
>
Certainly. Giving equal voice would be appropriate, and asking for equal
representation as well. Not giving more weight to certain voices over
others. Men are typically afraid of speaking up about such measures
because men are afraid of being called chauvinists. In fact, I may
attract that through this discussion. That's another lovely point about
enforcing equality of one group on another.

But equality can never be enforced by law. That's seen throughout the
world - show me a law on equality that has been in operation for years,
and then tell me if it has created equality. Any way a statistician
massages the numbers, there is still inequality. I have personally felt
it at many different levels because of the diverse heritages I have. So
yes, I know first hand about inequality. I've been refused gasoline
(petrol for you Europeans) in the Panhandle of Florida because I looked
hispanic (yet I am not). Would telling gas station owners that they must
sell gas to people who look hispanic at least 50% of the time in that
region help? :-)

Equality. Inequality. We speak of the Global South... even I speak of
the Global South... but not many people from the Global South are
actually participating. This will not sit well with representatives of
the Global South, but it is true - these are not people from fishing
villages or farms, these are not people who are simply housewives.

You're certainly familiar with Heisenberg and Planck.

The people who are participating have funding, the people who are not
participating do not have funding. Should we say that 50% of the people
without funding should be a part of the process? You see, this thing
doesn't suffer recursion well.

>Answering to your paragraph above: 
>
>Yes, personal injustice can arise as a result of this.
>
>The question is whether that is a price worth to be paid.
>
>I believe it is necessary, while I wish it would not be.
>  
>
Your stance sits well with me. But as you admit, it is a flawed stance.
Equality. We speak of it so much and yet when we try to fix it, it's by
meeting inequality with enforced inequality. And one cannot force
someone to treat another as an equal. That's sort of like installing
democracy by killing all the people who don't want it. That certainly
makes elections easier... in theory.

Taking this back to Free Software - would you agree that this stance
should be taken with Free Software? Is it right for a government to
dictate the software to be used, be it Free Software or proprietary?
Certainly not on licensing issues, but when it comes to having locally
produced software (which China has done) there is substantiation for
such dictation.

Personally, I don't expect a government to know what is best for me. I
think it's safe to say that if Civil Society felt that governments were
doing what was best for them, there would be no Civil Society. But here
we are. And the cornerstone of this discussion was that the WSIS-PCT did
not feel it got equal treatment when it came to the WGIG.

Again, here we are.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo