Just to clarify, I think the list should remain mixed sex.
But it is a problem when on a list dedicated to getting more women
involved, men post two to four times as much as women (depending on the
week), with some men posting a couple times a day. It can feel like the
"same old same old" - especially if the men are disagreeing a lot with
what women say. Plus women often do need more encouragement to post.
George definitely could post a bit more; and some male posters should
try to keep it down to one a day or five a week. I've been on lists of
Palestinians and of African-Americans where they were working on their
issues and I was always careful to just add info of general interest and
occasional positive suggestions -- and not to post too much or be
critical of their views since I felt they should work it out among
themselves.
Since most - not all - wikipedia issues are common to men and women,
more might be expected of guys here. But not as much as seems to come
through the list now.
On 3/16/2011 8:42 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
This is simply, nonsense! Don't you people realize
that separating this List
into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the
very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve. This is people talking
with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem
communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a
problem. But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve
it.
Marc Riddell
on 3/15/11 11:53 PM, carolmooredc(a)verizon.net at carolmooredc(a)verizon.net
wrote:
Yeah, George! A definite role model for the list;
but with such a common
sense attitude, you should feel free to post a tiny bit more :-)
On 3/14/2011 8:33 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> I realize that my replying is in a sense violating what I'm about to
> say below, but...
>
> I and some others who are male are here and either listening, or
> listening and briefly asking what the women present (and absent) feel
> about things and not asserting what you do or should think.
>
> I would appreciate not being locked out of part of the discussion. I
> appreciate that doing so necessarily means I should be minimizing my
> speaking out, and maximizing my listening, and I hope I've done so
> successfully.
>
> That said, if the dynamics here overall have created a list which is
> not optimal for encouraging women to participate, which I can clearly
> see is possible, I understand your wanting to do something about it.
> Two lists as proposed might be necessary.
>
> If this has happened on the list designed to talk about and fix the
> problem of that happening... *bang head on the wall* Talk about
> frustrating. We're supposed to be the "good guys", literally 8-(
>
>
> My two cents, and I will now go back to listening.
>
>