As I wrote in response to one of Jane's
threads on the Grants page that is relevant for both male and
female editors: ''Teaching new editors it's ok to stand up to
obvious negativity, which not reading too much negativity into
neutral criticism is important. Some people will read "they
attacked" or else "I'm incompetent" into relatively innocuous
comments and react in some negative fashion or just stop editing.
So psychological preparation for various contingencies helps. "
Of course, the problem remains dealing those who do exert
ownership, are POV pushers, are impatient with "newbies" - or just
rankle whenever they see an edit by someone they assume is female.
Thinking about the issue today, may we just need to teach women to
be bold and link to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick
when guys hassle them. I really should have done it myself dozens
of times in the past. Of course, if we could come up with a less
hostile and more guilt-tripping essay to make the point, that
would be much better. (WP:WhatWouldYourMotherSay ???)
It would be nice just to have to tell people we are training them
for collaborative editing. However, depending on what the topic
area is, we also have to prepare them for war - or at least
nonviolent struggle :-). Unless, of course, women are happy to be
shut out of all the high profile and conflict areas, which usually
are related to covering (and thus often influencing) domestic and
foreign/war policy?? Places where women too often are shut out in
the real word of journalism, think tanks and government already.
That's where I tend to edit and I have the battle scars to prove
it (details redacted). But the more women edit and opine and
become admins and arbitrators, the easier it will be for women who
want to edit in the high profile/conflict public policy areas to
do so without being attacked or unfairly subjected to double
standards and thus discouraged from editing.
CM
On 5/8/2014 11:31 AM, Megan Wacha wrote: