On 3/6/2015 12:52 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
An open question is whether or not this new set of pages should be eventually moved to replace the current "gender gap" page on meta (since the gender gap page's content was used as a base to create these new, hopefully user-friendly pages):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_gap#New_page:_Address_the_gender...
Would be interested to hear folks' thoughts in that discussion.
I confess this got me feeling my Cheerios and I replied at length with a couple issues which I think we have to address or our efforts are fruitless. As I say at the end, "Would a project with even 50% women, overwhelmingly relegated to those "safe" areas, be an improvement?" (Safe defined as no guys harassing us, telling us to go away, or the "safe" secretarial work of Wikipedia.)
Quoting me:
Evidently the original [[Gender_ Gap]] project page can be freely edited by any editor, as long as they are supportive of the project. This new one seems to be a bit more controlled by WMF employees and/or managers of related projects. Which is fine, as long as there still is a place for regular editors to add projects, info, concerns, i.e., the original Gender gap project. Tweaking intros of the two projects to make the difference clear would be fine.
My main problem is the new page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Address_the_gender_gap does not address more explicitly the problem of a small number of males being hostile towards women particularly and the fact too few guys - including admins - refuse to call them on it. Nor does it recognize the double standard against women who are forbidden to lose their tempers even under relentless harassment.
The Adrienne Wadewitz quote near the end noting that "When one group is mistreated, systematically denied a voice or rights...etc." is the only statement alluding to these facts, but it does not specify it is ''women'' who are mistreated and systematically denied. And the statement asking for males to help should specify that what women need the most help with is standing up to male bullies.
Most problematic is:
''Assumption #3: Women will make Wikipedia a nicer place -- This assumption is also based on gender stereotypes: the idea of women as peaceful, nonconfrontational, and harmless civilizing forces. In order for the community to be more civilized, civil behavior should be expected of every member of that community, no matter the gender.''
I believe #3 practically apologizes for any woman who dares to be 1/2 as annoying as the average annoying guy. I think too many guys (including admins and arbitrators) will read it as SUPPORTING women being treated more harshly than males who act the same way and perhaps even quote it when sanctioning a female! (I've seen statements chiding unladylike behavior even without the kind of "official endorsement" some will read this statement as being.)
In the en.Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactio... Interactions at Gender Gap task force arbitration] I was banned from the site for being far less obnoxious than a number of closely aligned males in the conflict. (This includes one who recently had made an obvious threat of violence against another editor on another topic and received a less than 24 hour block!) My truly inappropriate posting came only ''after'' Arbitrators allowed thread after thread of insulting comments and unsupported allegations against me and then voted to site ban me! (That is why I call harassment "institutionalized" on Wikipedia sites and will continue to do so until sexism among Administrators and Arbitrators is dealt with.)
The [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_d... Slate article about the Arbitration] noted: ''"With the Arbitration Committee opting only to ban the one woman in the dispute despite her behavior being no worse than that of the men, it’s hard not to see this as a setback to Wikipedia’s efforts to rectify its massive gender gap."''
Note that there actually were dozens of men and women criticizing these guys on the GGTF page. I was singled out in large part because for 7 years I dared to edit assertively articles on economics, politics and gender/feminism and did not just go away when repeatedly told to by male editors. So several of those guys ganged up with the anti-GGTF editors to get rid of me. And succeeded despite a number of other guys and women defending me. Many women have had these problems, but most leave well before they are driven out.
In short, the real issue is: Are women to resign themselves only to editing noncontroversial and "safe" articles where no one tells them to go away? To having little voice in articles regarding current events, the public sphere and, especially, womens' views and issues opposed by even a small minority of males? To just doing the "safe" copy editing and other "secretarial" work of the project? <u>Would a project with even 50% women, overwhelmingly relegated to those "safe" areas, be an improvement??</u> Or are we willing to make all topics in all Wikimedia projects safer areas for all individuals who may face discrimination and abuse?
The original Gender Gap page has been, is, and could be more adamant on mistreatment and silencing of women if it is worked on by the volunteer women editors who have to put up with these issues regularly.