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_gende…
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/Interacti…
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_…
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc