the daily telegraph published an article with title "Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11904203/Well-done-feminism.-No...
and linked to one with title "why powerful men now hide behind open doors": http://nypost.com/2015/05/26/why-powerful-men-now-hide-behind-open-doors/
what do you think about such pieces of text?
rupert
These articles do look highly exaggerated. And, of course, for some guys saying they are afraid of being accused of harassment is just a new excuse for cutting women out of the loop.
However, there is a real problem of people being overly sensitized to the issue due to over-regulation. This is largely the result of getting the government involved in legislating behavior.
Instead of dealing with actual crimes (assault or persistent and dangerous stalking/threats) governments at all levels start defining obnoxious but not dangerous behavior in such a way that companies are afraid of big fines and big lawsuits. They therefore go overboard in dealing with issues that should be dealt with in a more informal manner. Consciousness raising and peer pressure are the way to deal with these issues. And women must have the courage to speak up against each incident. If we expect big brother/uncle sam/the daddy state to do it for us, we are inviting inevitable backlash.
That doesn't mean we should not organize to have individual organizations, be it for-profits or non-profits like WMF, to make it clear such behavior is unacceptable. But they also should encourage individual initiative and peer pressure - and discourage obvious attempts to shut women out because of alleged fear of harassment accusations.
On 10/3/2015 1:10 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
the daily telegraph published an article with title "Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11904203/Well-done-feminism.-No...
and linked to one with title "why powerful men now hide behind open doors": http://nypost.com/2015/05/26/why-powerful-men-now-hide-behind-open-doors/
what do you think about such pieces of text?
rupert
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, I'd personally expect assault and persistent stalking/harassment to be made crimes. But being obnoxious isn't being harassing. If that were the truth, then I'd be in prison for "harassing" a girl in class that I liked in school. We shouldn't let the nanny state speak up for every "discrimination" of females. Instead, what should be the point is encourangement of personal inititiative to encourage females to speak up in harassment. In conclusion, females should speak up against "harassment" by themselves, rather than letting the state do it for them.—Eat me, I'm an azuki At 2015-10-03 21:24:27, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
These articles do look highly exaggerated. And, of course, for some guys saying they are afraid of being accused of harassment is just a new excuse for cutting women out of the loop.
However, there is a real problem of people being overly sensitized to the issue due to over-regulation. This is largely the result of getting the government involved in legislating behavior.
Instead of dealing with actual crimes (assault or persistent and dangerous stalking/threats) governments at all levels start defining obnoxious but not dangerous behavior in such a way that companies are afraid of big fines and big lawsuits. They therefore go overboard in dealing with issues that should be dealt with in a more informal manner. Consciousness raising and peer pressure are the way to deal with these issues. And women must have the courage to speak up against each incident. If we expect big brother/uncle sam/the daddy state to do it for us, we are inviting inevitable backlash.
That doesn't mean we should not organize to have individual organizations, be it for-profits or non-profits like WMF, to make it clear such behavior is unacceptable. But they also should encourage individual initiative and peer pressure - and discourage obvious attempts to shut women out because of alleged fear of harassment accusations.
On 10/3/2015 1:10 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
the daily telegraph published an article with title "Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11904203/Well-done-feminism.-No...
and linked to one with title "why powerful men now hide behind open doors": http://nypost.com/2015/05/26/why-powerful-men-now-hide-behind-open-doors/
what do you think about such pieces of text?
rupert
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
From having looked only at the headlines:
1) I really don't see the direct relevance of these to this list.
2) Consider the sources: a British newspaper so notorious for its sympathies to the Conservative Party and its associated politics that it's known informally as the Torygraph, and an American tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch and known for similar politics.
Daniel Case
The relevance is that some wikipedia editors would like to shut us all up about harassment and civility and have made or will increase making these kinds of arguments...
Already made: "I'm a serious contributor with 100 contributions a day and I shouldn't have to put up with petty nonsense about civility and harassment."
"These women are just oversensitive and have to "man up" and take it."
New variations could be made:
"I'm scared of making my 100 contributions a day cause I might get accused of harassment if there are any women on that article."
"These women and their false accusations are scaring away dozens of top contributors..." etc.
"I hope the women editing here won't start screaming harassment and start scaring away big contributors who put so much important material in the encyclopedia."
"This woman complaining about harassment at ANI is just part of a pack of feminists world wide who are scaring men so badly they are hurting themselves and wikipedia..."
etc.
On 10/3/2015 11:19 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
From having looked only at the headlines:
I really don't see the direct relevance of these to this list.
Consider the sources: a British newspaper so notorious for its
sympathies to the Conservative Party and its associated politics that it's known informally as the Torygraph, and an American tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch and known for similar politics.
Daniel Case
Well, what I'd like to say is that some of these arguments do make sense. While men shouldn't get over-sensitive over perceived "harassment" of them, neither should women just whine about harassment.--Eat me, I'm an azuki At 2015-10-04 01:29:33, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
The relevance is that some wikipedia editors would like to shut us all up about harassment and civility and have made or will increase making these kinds of arguments...
Already made: "I'm a serious contributor with 100 contributions a day and I shouldn't have to put up with petty nonsense about civility and harassment."
"These women are just oversensitive and have to "man up" and take it."
New variations could be made:
"I'm scared of making my 100 contributions a day cause I might get accused of harassment if there are any women on that article."
"These women and their false accusations are scaring away dozens of top contributors..." etc.
"I hope the women editing here won't start screaming harassment and start scaring away big contributors who put so much important material in the encyclopedia."
"This woman complaining about harassment at ANI is just part of a pack of feminists world wide who are scaring men so badly they are hurting themselves and wikipedia..."
etc.
On 10/3/2015 11:19 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
From having looked only at the headlines:
I really don't see the direct relevance of these to this list.
Consider the sources: a British newspaper so notorious for its
sympathies to the Conservative Party and its associated politics that it's known informally as the Torygraph, and an American tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch and known for similar politics.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 10/4/2015 5:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
Well, what I'd like to say is that some of these arguments do make sense. While men shouldn't get over-sensitive over perceived "harassment" of them, neither should women just whine about harassment.--Eat me, I'm an azuki
The problem is is the double standard where women's actions are more easily perceived as uncivil and/or harassment and their complaints about incivility/harassment are labeled whining or even harassment.
I got banned from Wikipedia for merely defending myself against constant harassment on the Gender Gap talk page and losing my temper a few times in Arbitration because of the massive harassment there by people I didn't even know.
The guy who got Ibanned from me for harassment got NO other warning or sanction about it during arbitration. The guy who started a harassing article about me only got a warning.
Only two of the several guys who worked together to harass and sabotage the talk page got warnings about it.
By the way, "eat me, I'm an azuki" doesn't sound like a friendly message. Must I really do an internet search of the meaning of the term azuki?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
Well, what I'd like to say is that some of these arguments do make sense. While men shouldn't get over-sensitive over perceived "harassment" of them, neither should women just whine about harassment.--Eat me, I'm an azuki
The problem is is the double standard where women's actions are more easily perceived as uncivil and/or harassment and their complaints about incivility/harassment are labeled whining or even harassment.
I got banned from Wikipedia for merely defending myself against constant harassment on the Gender Gap talk page and losing my temper a few times in Arbitration because of the massive harassment there by people I didn't even know.
The guy who got Ibanned from me for harassment got NO other warning or sanction about it during arbitration. The guy who started a harassing article about me only got a warning.
Only two of the several guys who worked together to harass and sabotage the talk page got warnings about it.
By the way, "eat me, I'm an azuki" doesn't sound like a friendly message. Must I really do an internet search of the meaning of the term azuki?
i now saw the ban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactio... and i read that you lost your temper a couple of times. what do you think about anger management in this context, what i suggested here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2015-September/005946.html ? or you think this is completely off ?
rupert
On 10/5/2015 10:11 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: what do you
think about anger management in this context, what i suggested here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2015-September/005946.html ? or you think this is completely off ?
rupert
Anger management is always a good idea. As long as it is not applied with a double standard - which it usually is.
On 5 October 2015 at 23:30, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2015 10:11 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: what do you
think about anger management in this context, what i suggested here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2015-September/005946.html ? or you think this is completely off ?
rupert
Anger management is always a good idea. As long as it is not applied with a double standard - which it usually is.
Please. Can we have some assumptions of good faith? Rupert is trying to reach out.
RIsker
On 10/5/2015 11:56 PM, Risker wrote:
On 5 October 2015 at 23:30, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/5/2015 10:11 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: what do you think about anger management in this context, what i suggested here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2015-September/005946.html ? or you think this is completely off ? rupert Anger management is always a good idea. As long as it is not applied with a double standard - which it usually is.
Please. Can we have some assumptions of good faith? Rupert is trying to reach out.
RIsker
Given the accusatory title of this thread (I see no quotation marks), I would like to think some women were a bit annoyed. However, no women besides myself and now you responded at all. (I just noticed now the thread was started by Rupert.)
Reaching out is great. As long as it is to all parties to a harassment situation (past/present/future) so it doesn't seem/look/feel like only those who are being harassed have an anger problem. I think that would counter the purpose of this list. Don't you?
CM
CM
I didn't respond because responding to misogyny like "Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work" is pointless. Don't wrestle the pig, you just get muddy and the pig likes it.
Ogress
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2015 11:56 PM, Risker wrote:
On 5 October 2015 at 23:30, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 10/5/2015 10:11 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: what do you think about anger management in this context, what i suggested
here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2015-September/005946.html ? or you think this is completely off ?
rupert Anger management is always a good idea. As long as it is not applied with a double standard - which it usually is.
Please. Can we have some assumptions of good faith? Rupert is trying to reach out.
RIsker
Given the accusatory title of this thread (I see no quotation marks), I would like to think some women were a bit annoyed. However, no women besides myself and now you responded at all. (I just noticed now the thread was started by Rupert.)
Reaching out is great. As long as it is to all parties to a harassment situation (past/present/future) so it doesn't seem/look/feel like only those who are being harassed have an anger problem. I think that would counter the purpose of this list. Don't you?
CM
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 10/6/2015 4:16 AM, Hannah Penntreth wrote:
I didn't respond because responding to misogyny like "Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work" is pointless. Don't wrestle the pig, you just get muddy and the pig likes it.
Ogress
Unfortunately, I was more interested in comparing the misogyny of the article's message to that I've seen on WP, so didn't immediately take it as negatively as a couple other people did.
We should remember this is a moderated list and the currently listed moderators are: kgorman at gmail.com, keilanawiki at gmail.com, leigh at hypatia.ca
(Unless list needs updating?)
In case there should be future issues members want to take to them privately.
Okay, so the main problem is double-standard in which women speaking up against perceived harassment is considered incivil. I'd just like to say that there is a difference between a legitimate whistle blower and a whiny little mushroom.--Eat me, I'm an azuki At 2015-10-06 02:42:56, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
Well, what I'd like to say is that some of these arguments do make sense. While men shouldn't get over-sensitive over perceived "harassment" of them, neither should women just whine about harassment.--Eat me, I'm an azuki
The problem is is the double standard where women's actions are more easily perceived as uncivil and/or harassment and their complaints about incivility/harassment are labeled whining or even harassment.
I got banned from Wikipedia for merely defending myself against constant harassment on the Gender Gap talk page and losing my temper a few times in Arbitration because of the massive harassment there by people I didn't even know.
The guy who got Ibanned from me for harassment got NO other warning or sanction about it during arbitration. The guy who started a harassing article about me only got a warning.
Only two of the several guys who worked together to harass and sabotage the talk page got warnings about it.
By the way, "eat me, I'm an azuki" doesn't sound like a friendly message. Must I really do an internet search of the meaning of the term azuki?
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Is there a specific point you are trying to make other than stating the obvious?
Cheers,
Peter
From: Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Williams Sent: Tuesday, 06 October 2015 9:31 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work
Okay, so the main problem is double-standard in which women speaking up against perceived harassment is considered incivil. I'd just like to say that there is a difference between a legitimate whistle blower and a whiny little mushroom.--Eat me, I'm an azuki At 2015-10-06 02:42:56, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:59 AM, Robert Williams wrote:
Well, what I'd like to say is that some of these arguments do make sense. While men shouldn't get over-sensitive over perceived "harassment" of them, neither should women just whine about harassment.--Eat me, I'm an azuki
The problem is is the double standard where women's actions are more easily perceived as uncivil and/or harassment and their complaints about incivility/harassment are labeled whining or even harassment.
I got banned from Wikipedia for merely defending myself against constant harassment on the Gender Gap talk page and losing my temper a few times in Arbitration because of the massive harassment there by people I didn't even know.
The guy who got Ibanned from me for harassment got NO other warning or sanction about it during arbitration. The guy who started a harassing article about me only got a warning.
Only two of the several guys who worked together to harass and sabotage the talk page got warnings about it.
By the way, "eat me, I'm an azuki" doesn't sound like a friendly message. Must I really do an internet search of the meaning of the term azuki?
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap