[clug] Open Source Software's Dirty Little Secret

[Jack Kelly]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net> wrote:
> Jack Kelly <endgame.dos at gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:47 AM, steve jenkin <sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Like Gyms.  Fernwood does very well offering an 'all women' environment,
>>> because women aren't put off...  [Please tell me why that doesn't fail the
>>> anti-discrimination test, when Men Only Clubs get pilloried]
>
> Simple: because this is discrimination, but specifically discrimination to
> redress the situation that women do not, otherwise, have equal access to the
> gym because of the hostile environment.
>
>> That puzzles me, too. Turns out that they applied for and got an exemption:
>> http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/anti-discrimination_list/$file/fernwood_decision.pdf
>> Seems to be something about promoting "equality of opportunity" instead of
>> straight "equality".
>
> Exactly.  This discrimination is a *tool* in delivering the larger picture
> goal.  Social change can't be delivered on a "flag day", out of nowhere.
> It takes time, effort, and an awful lot of hard work.

Yeah, OK, but if the problem is that a unisex gym is creating a
hostile environment, then a better solution IMHO is to fix the
environment, not create a segregated one.

>> The bit about a unisex gym being converted to a Fernwood franchise and
>> charging all the former male members fees to transfer their membership is
>> particularly interesting.
>
> Well, a business changing hands and policy isn't anything new, and it happens
> all the time.  The fee seems a bit dubious ... though, really, given that an
> ownership changeover could put people out entirely their fees[1]

I fail to parse this sentence.

>>> Summary:
>>> It's a crazy world and I don't understand the trends or apparent
>>> contradictions.
>>
>> Me neither.
>
> I don't think it is that hard, and I am really surprised you can't work out
> the pattern behind this:
>
> Positive discrimination can produce measurable benefits in restoring
> equality.  It does this through several mechanisms, but the biggest and most
> obvious is that it provides a pool of <unprivileged class> the chance to
> develop the skills and experience they need to participate equally with the
> pool of <privileged class> who have been doing this for years.

Because I would like to believe that it is unnecessary. People should
be able to get the help they need to do what they're trying to do
without it having anything to do with whatever $minority they happen
to be a member of. Perhaps that's a bit idealistic.

-- Jack