The problem of how to create a truly safe space is a tricky one. I would like to relate two difference experiences, both more than 20 years ago but still cause me to reflect on how best to achieve it:
When I was an undergraduate fresher in a well known London college, I was puzzled by the lack of a Gay Soc. It was the 1980s, still a radical time, and I wanted to be out and proud and test my views with other gay people. I eventually found out that only two years before, the college rugby team had joined the gay soc en-mass and at its first meeting of the year voted to disband the society. A despicable act, which certainly serves as an example of why ensuring that members of a community group that might experience hostile lobbying would want to ensure those joining share the values and aims of the community. Sadly the Gay Soc took several years to be re-created so it was not until I was a postgrad at another University that I could take part in such a group.
My other experience was when working in a large bank. Based on the success of establishing a women's professional network, we formed a LGBT network which then pushed the organization on policy changes to ensure greater equality. In theory we were open to anyone, however no 'straight' person ever did join. A feature of our 50-ish member group was that we had many fun social events, the gay men in particular felt free to swap gossip, stories of their sex lives and relationships, and frank suggestions about London clubs and bars (a long time before Grindr). To be honest, our conversation would not have been as fun or social if anyone felt they had to mind their p's and q's.
I would understand why having a declared women only space would feel like a much safer space for many women. Certainly it would be a freer space, where blowing off a bit of steam, or talking through more radical ideas which might be unacceptable in 'public', would not be an issue. Being a man, I might be excluded, but I would support having *both* open and controlled membership spaces, especially if interesting discussions in the controlled space mostly get shared in the open one. Having both solves different issues, and may be the only way we have to side-step the sort of disruption seen in the last few months; though I suggest that "control" is weak and not left entirely to those with the normal Wikimedia project admin or Arbcom background as methods of blocking, banning or moderation is not necessarily helpful when attempting to embrace creative and at times difficult ideas.
P.S. Happy New Year everyone. :-D
Fae
Thank you Fæ for your experiences (especially the cautionary tale told by the first one). I would like to also offer a more theoretical caveat, to wit that any sort of "women-only" space within the Wikimedia framework may with even the best of intentions backfire, or at least fail to meet its goal of supporting those female or female-identifying editors who feel the need for it.
To wit: there is a rather large percentage of women, not a majority but at least a third, maybe even over 40 percent according to some studies*, who actively avoid taking part socially in organizations likely to be dominated by other women, or even informal such "taco fest" situations like, say, hanging out at the pick-up/drop-off spot outside a school (at least in the US; I'm sure that readers from other countries will be aware of more apt analogies in their own cultures, if they exist). We need not go into the reasons at this time.
But I suspect that that group of women probably accounts for a large share of the women who _do_ edit Wikipedia regularly and successfully. So a women-only space may ironically see far less use than expected, and accomplish little of what might be hoped.
Daniel Case
*Deborah Tannen alludes to these in some of her books, and the decidedly non-academic "The Twisted Sisterhood" is devoted entirely to this.