I believe the problem is that you somehow read that initial post proposing the IRC group as saying it would be exclusively for women. As far as I can tell, no one else read it that way. If that is your only concern, I believe you can be reassured.
Steve McDonald
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> MJ Ray
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea
>
> Tim Donohue <[log in to unmask]>
> > However, I think some/many are taking offense to the implication that
> > 'libtechwomen' is discriminatory or prejudice against men or minority
> > groups just because its name includes "women". [...] To call a group
> > discriminatory just because they initially planned to concentrate on
> > specific gender issues is just wrong (in my opinion).
>
> Whoa! Hang on a minute! I don't think the name is great and I feel that we
> could do better for a first support group, but I'm not objecting to either of
> those.
>
> It's not "just because" either of those and it's rather frustrating if anyone still
> thinks it is. (Similarly in the other email from Steve, I never meant to suggest
> the "completely spurious" thing.) My objection arose because the opening
> post in this thread suggested it would be discriminatory:
> https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?A2=ind1212&L=CODE4LIB&F=&S=&P=166649
> described it as a "group for just women".
>
> There are later emails which claim otherwise. twitter.com/libtechwomen and
> http://libtechwomen.tumblr.com/ don't say either way, as far as I can see (if
> you'll excuse the pun). I don't really want to hop on IRC and ask because of
> past bad experiences with a previous group.
>
> Is there clarity that deliberately-discriminatory groups should have no
> platform in code4lib? And is it sure that libtechwomen is not the
> aforementioned women-only group?
>
> Thanks
> --
> MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]>
> Setchey, Norfolk, England
|
