Quoth Tom Morton:* "But I know I am in a
minority singing from the
sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a
point that might cause at least one person to think carefully."*
Well, you've certainly made me think carefully about whether this list
is actually a safe space to discuss sexism- and gender-related issues.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Morton <
morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all
sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet
around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might
cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom
On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton <
> morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't
> seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the
> word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
>
>
> Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about
> complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance
> in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it
> isn't sexist.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
>
>
> It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an
> unpleasant reaction.
>
> I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might
> put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a
> noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is
> offputting to people.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey <fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was
>> supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I
>> said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses
>> I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were
>> pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all,
>> and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my
>> silly old "women are equal" crap.
>>
>> I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as
>> the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding"
that's
>> just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and
>> in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the
>> appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the
>> better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
>>
>> As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male
>> editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer
is
>> no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
>>
>> -Fluff
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers <
>> LtPowers_Wiki(a)rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like
>>> Drmies’ initial post.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical
>>> “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered
>>> defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS
>>> are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an
>>> attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it
>>> offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that
>>> your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and,
>>> not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another
>>> mental notch in “welcomingness”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely
>>> garners productive responses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Powers &8^]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24
>>> *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>>> *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another day, another
example<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministra…
casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no
>>> harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while
meaning
>>> none. I seem to
have<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboar…
significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be
>>> publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that
>>> saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion
>>> that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to
make
>>> comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Fluff
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org