Equanity and Sameness - Gendergap

18 Sep 2013

Somehow you appear to think that equality and sameness are synonymous. 
It is not possible to close the gender gap by defining male and female 
as the same. This kind of thinking will drive the wedge deeper because 
each will be invalidated for who they are.

________________________________
 From: &quot;gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&quot;
&lt;gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org 
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:00 AM
Subject: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 10

Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
    gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9 (john allyn)
   2. Re: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9 (Emily Monroe)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: john allyn &lt;jaddtwo(a)yahoo.com&gt;
To: &quot;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&quot; &lt;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9
Message-ID:
    &lt;1379366467.96269.YahooMailNeo(a)web120001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com&gt;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Somehow you appear to think that equality and sameness are synonymous. It is not possible
to close the gender gap by defining male and female as the same. This kind of thinking
will drive the wedge deeper because each will be invalidated for who they are.

________________________________
From: &quot;gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&quot;
&lt;gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:00 AM
Subject: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9

Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
    gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Archaic gendered terminology (Lane Rasberry)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:43:47 -0400
From: Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt;
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
    participation    of women within Wikimedia projects."
    &lt;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Archaic gendered terminology
Message-ID:
    &lt;CAJb6Kh5SLCkCo9BFB4LHJCf+NJkAcMno6XNk+Mk0EhKUAez8qQ(a)mail.gmail.com&gt;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hello,

I expect that many people will continue to use the term "actress" for
females in the profession. I notice that the Amy Johnson discussion raises
that.

A couple of years ago I got to review an elementary English textbook being
distributed in very large numbers in North India. It was an original work
seemingly derived from public domain content and had a section on gendered
nouns, including "negro" and "negress". I looked at the time for a
style
guide on best practices for gendered term and I could not find anything
clear when I looked then, but obviously there is bad information to be
found online among the public domain texts and it really grated on me that
new print works were being distributed to teach children such things.

We might not be so far from the day when someone could publish a Wikipedia
Manual of Style and expect it to be an authoritative text. I am not sure
what the right answer is in this case but whatever you find please consider
noting on the manual of style because this question will come up again.

Thanks for sharing.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Gobonobo &lt;gobonobo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

...
  I've been going through a lot of historical
biographies lately and am
 surprised to see how often archaic gendered terms such as poetess,
 sculptress, and aviatrix crop up in Wikipedia articles. I know some of
 these come from the older sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but in other
 cases their inclusion is the result of decisions being made by editors.
 There's currently a discussion on [[Talk:Amy Johnson]] over whether she
 should be referred to as an aviatrix, for instance.

 I'm wondering how this has been dealt with previously and if there are
 specific policies surrounding such uses. I've found the essays
 [[Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language]] and [[Wikipedia:Use modern language]]
 and note that [[WP:MOS]] says "use gender-neutral language where this can
 be done with clarity and precision". It seems as if despite these fairly
 clear precepts, the use of these terms persists.

 Are there any archaic terms where it has been broadly agreed that using
 them is not encyclopedic? I would be much obliged if anyone could point me
 to previous discussions about this.

 ~Gobonobo

 ______________________________**_________________
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap<https://lists.w…

-- 
Lane Rasberry
206.801.0814
lane(a)bluerasberry.com