On 6/6/2013 9:13 PM, Tarc . wrote: ^Maybe it's got something to do with those Iroquois Clan mothers. Main thing I remember is they could stop wars. This Is what Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Mother /The Clanmothers are usually the elder women, who are wise and have experienced many years. Clanmothers control the nation. They are considered the life givers. Not only did they appoint the tribal chief (also called the Hoyaneh) but they also watched them during all meetings judging them fairly to make sure they were not voting for themselves, but the whole tribe. If one did not meet these expectations, he would immediately get thrown out of power and the clan mother would choose a new hoyaneh. It was a great shame to be kicked out of power by the clan mothers.[1]/ Hey, lots of women think that would be a great plan for modern society, too... Thus perhaps the primal fear of some males... The same fear that makes them put all sorts of sexist stuff on wikipedia and tell obvious women editors (or a transgender one recently) things like why do you get so emotional?? I heard that twice in the last couple weeks over some dispute involving various policy violations. I doubt if I had a male name they'd have used that "argument." If we can't admit somewhere that that's the kind of primal emotional male dominance we see too regularly on Wikipedia, why does this list exist?? CM in DC ^

On 6/6/2013 9:59 PM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote: Thanks for expanding my knowledge to another group with a similar practice. Of course, every grouping was "made up" by somebody at some time... In 1766 who were all those guys who signed the declaration of independence in 1776? A bunch of people who mostly might not have their own wikipedia articles (or someone might have tried to AfD?) ;-) CM

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>wrote;wrote: I'm confused too about when posting to this list might constitute a violation of [[WP:CANVAS]], or if it does whether we ought to pay attention to it. Is posting to this public list an example of what the guideline calls "stealth canvassing*": "*Contacting users off-wiki ..."? There have been several occasions where issues directly relevant to the treatment of women on Wikipedia have arisen, and I've been hesitant to mention them because they involved an RfC, AfD or similar. I can understand the concern, but on the other hand it's leading to people who might be interested in an issue not being told about it. What do others think? Where should we draw the line? Sarah

+1. I think when these things have come up they have stimulated a good variety of views and served to explore ways of making good decisions. The fact that the last is open subscription supports that dynamic too. Pete User:Peteforsyth On Jun 7, 2013 6:44 PM, "Michael J. Lowrey" <orangemike(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>wrote;wrote: There seems to be a starting consensus at [[WT:Canvas]] that if the mailing list is a Foundation one with a public archive, and if the initial email about the issue is worded neutrally (e.g. here is a discussion that list members might be interested in), there shouldn't be a problem. Sarah

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>wrote;wrote: Yes, we always ignore the ranting and raving. :)