For the benefit of Lukas' possible rewrite:

You mention feminism as though there is only one kind of feminism. You might like to fick through the different forms of feminism which exist, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory#See_also some of which oppose one another (for instance liberal feminism v. difference feminism).

...also.

This is an exchange which I had with a male editor about the future scope of the gender gap project.


The male editor suggested:
"To my eyes, the best way to determine what, if any, content this group should deal with is by maybe starting an RfC about it, and asking particularly women what kind of content they think is underrepresented, or tilted to one side, or whatever, and making some sort of effort to correct that imbanalance. Fashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing, and any number of other topics beyond feminism may be just as, or maybe even more, important to more women editors than feminism."

I replied saying:
"It is interesting that on the talk page of a task force whose scope is already clearly defined as:
"...to address all the ways in which the gender gap affects the position of women on Wikipedia, and their absence from it, as article subjects, editors, and readers. ..."
that the examples you gave did not include science, business, filmmaking, politics etc. but instead focused on an extremely narrow and old-fashioned, traditional view of women's roles."

The same male editor then pursued me to my talk page:
"Let me be blunt here. Your regular, almost paranoic, aspersions on others who do not share your obvious bias regarding the GGTF being primarily a means to promote feminism comes across to me, and I imagine others, as being almost childish, rather immature, and frankly counterproductive. Please reas WP:AGF and realize that it is possible, however fervently you might apparently believe otherwise, that people can legitimately disagree with your opinions and not be anti-feminist. And, yes, as I said on the talk page in question, the purpose of the task force was to increase the participation of women of all sorts, not just radical feminists like you apparently are. And, also, at some point, you might want to look over the various pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias and see that I have added several entries there which apparently relate to women which do not necessarily show the radical anti-feminist bias you so strongly and obviously indicate is shared by anyone who doesn't want to see the GGTF become the "feminist WikiProject" in all but name. Frankly, I can honestly say that there are some other women who are active editors who do not share your personal biases and I have to think that if they see the comments and discussion at the GGTF talk page they may well become even perhaps a bit more disinterested or even opposed to the group than they might already be."

I replied on his talk page:
"Science, business, filmmaking and politics are not 'feminist' interests. They are simply interests, and it is not 'paranoia' to suggest so."

He replied on my talk page (note - my user name includes the word "Feminist"):
"Responding to your post on my user talk page, I think you will notice that I did not disagree with that statement, although your own comments seem to willfully denigate the possibility that women could be interested in topics of "traditional" interest to women. And it is not unreasonble to point out to you that your clear bias, as indicated by your user name, and your repeated unfounded insinuations regarding the motivations and thinking of others does clearly at least seem to border on the paranoic. While your comment on my user talk page makes it rather obvious that you either don't read what others say, or possibly, somewhat self-righteously(?) jump to conclusions and assume that your telepathy makes it possible for you to devise what they are "really" thinking, I have to say that much of your conduct and commentary of late seems to me anyway to be blindly biased in favor of a clearly feminist ideology. Maybe you could make more of an effort to actually read and address them, rather than try to spin everything, including the comments of others, to somehow perhaps reflect a feminist perspective in accord with your own."

My answer:
"Two days ago, to a new editor I said, "I've no issue with you or any other editor wanting to concentrate on articles that may be considered feminine. For me this is about articles and edits that end up having to navigate a sniper's alley whilst other articles and edits get safe passage." I also said, two days ago, "All threads started by GGTF participants are relevant to GGTF by the virtue of having been started by one of the project's participants." If I were POV pushing I would have said "Anything outside of radical feminism is irrelevant to the project." I don't believe that and I have never, ever said it.

All I said to you was that it was "interesting that your list of what you consider "topics of female interest" was entirely made of domesticity. FYI, I am not a 'radical' feminist (in what way does my signature show that?). I am a socialist feminist. Perhaps it is you who need to read properly and need to examine your own paranoia instead of constantly trying rehash the project's scope."

Marie