Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism]

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Louis <louis.gorenfeld@...>, <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, February 11, 2013 - 2:07 pm

--e89a8ff1c2ba68d9fd04d5736e44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Feb 11, 2013 11:16 AM, "Louis" wrote:

generations as more people are addicted to computers and catch the bug to
want to create software.

Unfortunately, the trend in the industry is toward mobile devices without
built-in developer toolkits. Maybe that will change eventually, but for
now, you need a computer to write for iOS or Android, and computers will,
sooner or later, become specialist tools. This makes it less likely that
people will discover the fun of tinkering with software, rather than more.
Apple seems to be steering in this direction, by locking iOS and charging
for the developer tools. A concrete impact in SuperCollider-land is that
now, only a small handful of developers are building and testing in OSX. At
present, SuperCollider is better supported in Linux than on the Mac in some
ways. But Apple seems not to feel it's a problem that it's becoming harder
to do creative things with the platform. A captive audience of content
consumers serves business interests better. (Android is not significantly
better, though at least the tool set is free afaik.)

> Btw, there's a similar gender discrepancy in electronic music (as far as
I've noticed), and that requires no math... There's more going on here than
sexism, afaik.

You might not need to work directly with complex math formulas, but audio
engineering is highly technical. If someone feels discouraged to pursue
technical skills (because of social bias, say), then audio engineering
won't be a friendly place as soon as we start talking about filters'
frequency responses etc.

My gut feeling is that it's probably too simple to say that the gender
disproportion comes entirely from sexism (nurture) or innate differences
(nature). There could still end up being a larger number of men in
technical fields, even of we could remove all trace of gender bias from
parenting and education. If so, I'm at pains to think how human action
could change that.

But, if a woman might have become a top studio recordist and producer, or
techno producer, or whatever, and she ends up NOT being that because she
got the wrong messages from early childhood (and then further unwelcoming
messages from music-tech communities), that's a cryin' shame. We all win if
we find ways to eliminate social biases that can cause that to happen.

hjh

--e89a8ff1c2ba68d9fd04d5736e44
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 11, 2013 11:16 AM, "Louis" <louis.gorenfeld@gmail.com> wrote:

ming generations as more people are addicted to computers and catch the bug=
to want to create software.
Unfortunately, the trend in the industry is toward mobile de=
vices without built-in developer toolkits. Maybe that will change eventuall=
y, but for now, you need a computer to write for iOS or Android, and comput=
ers will, sooner or later, become specialist tools. This makes it less like=
ly that people will discover the fun of tinkering with software, rather tha=
n more. Apple seems to be steering in this direction, by locking iOS and ch=
arging for the developer tools. A concrete impact in SuperCollider-land is =
that now, only a small handful of developers are building and testing in OS=
X. At present, SuperCollider is better supported in Linux than on the Mac i=
n some ways. But Apple seems not to feel it's a problem that it's b=
ecoming harder to do creative things with the platform. A captive audience =
of content consumers serves business interests better. (Android is not sign=
ificantly better, though at least the tool set is free afaik.)

> Btw, there's a similar gender discrepancy in electr=
onic music (as far as I've noticed), and that requires no math... There=
's more going on here than sexism, afaik.
You might not need to work directly with complex math formul=
as, but audio engineering is highly technical. If someone feels discouraged=
to pursue technical skills (because of social bias, say), then audio engin=
eering won't be a friendly place as soon as we start talking about filt=
ers' frequency responses etc.

My gut feeling is that it's probably too simple to say t=
hat the gender disproportion comes entirely from sexism (nurture) or innate=
differences (nature). There could still end up being a larger number of me=
n in technical fields, even of we could remove all trace of gender bias fro=
m parenting and education. If so, I'm at pains to think how human actio=
n could change that.

But, if a woman might have become a top studio recordist and=
producer, or techno producer, or whatever, and she ends up NOT being that =
because she got the wrong messages from early childhood (and then further u=
nwelcoming messages from music-tech communities), that's a cryin' s=
hame. We all win if we find ways to eliminate social biases that can cause =
that to happen.

hjh

--e89a8ff1c2ba68d9fd04d5736e44--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], James Harkins, (Mon Feb 11, 1:41 am)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], Louis, (Mon Feb 11, 3:17 am)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], James Harkins, (Mon Feb 11, 2:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], Louis Gorenfeld, (Mon Feb 11, 5:58 pm)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], Simon Wise, (Mon Feb 11, 6:05 am)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Feb 11, 2:47 am)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], Bruno Gola, (Mon Feb 11, 2:53 am)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: Fuck your sexism], Ralf Mardorf, (Mon Feb 11, 3:57 am)
Re: [LAU] [Fwd: Re: **** your sexism], Chris Bannister, (Mon Feb 11, 10:18 am)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, David Baron, (Mon Feb 11, 10:53 am)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Louigi Verona, (Mon Feb 11, 11:15 am)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Chris Bannister, (Tue Feb 12, 10:44 am)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Chris Bannister, (Mon Feb 11, 1:07 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Florian Faber, (Mon Feb 11, 1:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Florian Faber, (Mon Feb 11, 1:11 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Louigi Verona, (Mon Feb 11, 2:51 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Chris Bannister, (Tue Feb 12, 10:42 am)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Q, (Tue Feb 12, 12:45 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, david, (Mon Feb 11, 7:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Louigi Verona, (Mon Feb 11, 8:21 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Dave Phillips, (Mon Feb 11, 8:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Paul Davis, (Mon Feb 11, 9:08 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Louigi Verona, (Mon Feb 11, 10:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, david, (Mon Feb 11, 9:03 pm)
Re: [LAU] *** **** *** **** *** ****, Neil C Smith, (Mon Feb 11, 11:53 am)