Earlier: ... Gender relations falls apart when you start imputing misogynistic motives that were never there ...
Peter Blaise responds: You almost have it. I think the whole point is that, after a while, the misogyny, like any habit, is no longer a conscious effort, but is a seamless and unaware part of their interchange. The real struggle is trying to bring awareness to what has become an unaware habit, versus the ardent resistance to that attempted consciousness raising. Do not confuse consequences with intentions. Regardless of the intentions, aware or unaware, the effects stand on their own.
On 8/30/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Earlier: ... Gender relations falls apart when you start imputing misogynistic motives that were never there ...
Peter Blaise responds: You almost have it. I think the whole point is that, after a while, the misogyny, like any habit, is no longer a conscious effort, but is a seamless and unaware part of their interchange. The real struggle is trying to bring awareness to what has become an unaware habit, versus the ardent resistance to that attempted consciousness raising. Do not confuse consequences with intentions. Regardless of the intentions, aware or unaware, the effects stand on their own.
Thanks, Peter, for saying it so well.
KP
How many editors actually check what gender another editor is? Even user pages can be vague unless the editor actually states they are male or female. Personal names don't help Stacey, Kimberley, Chris etc and as for edits [[Knitting]] and [[Women in prison film]] are not an indication.
Mysogeny doesn't work on Wikipedia for the simple reason that all the female editors I know are perhaps stronger willed or ready to cut the BS before it happens. Or is it mysogenist to suggest that?
mike33
On 8/30/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
How many editors actually check what gender another editor is? Even user pages can be vague unless the editor actually states they are male or female. Personal names don't help Stacey, Kimberley, Chris etc and as for edits [[Knitting]] and [[Women in prison film]] are not an indication.
Mysogeny doesn't work on Wikipedia for the simple reason that all the female editors I know are perhaps stronger willed or ready to cut the BS before it happens. Or is it mysogenist to suggest that?
mike33
Actually it works quite well if you disagree with something misogynist on Wikipedia--when you think comments like, "gotta keep the pimp hand strong" are offensive for example. (Although nicely it turned out to be a wimp hand, and ain't so strong anymore.)
So, you've never seen anything misogynist on Wikipedia? And if you have, did you speak up? Again, I suggest that certain people are more likely to notice it than others. And others, those comfortable being a member of the club as it is, less likely.
I've seen plenty, and when I've spoken up, I've been thoroughly put in my place, ganged up on by hords of male, and some female, editors ready to make sure that the boys continue to have a safe place to play.
Making a user box declaring yourself a pimp, and connecting it to the article on pimp, in the ordinary sense of "seller of sexual access to women's bodies for profit" sense, is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all.
KP
I think this thread needs to end if we continue to get so personal. Whatever my feelings on the need for a discussion about this kind of discrimination on Wikipedia, accusatory comments like "...is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all." are unacceptable. It may be that you were shouted down, even if you had legit arguments, because you ran around proclaiming everyone who disagreed with you to be a misogynist. Let's have a civil conversation, or none at all.
On 8/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
How many editors actually check what gender another editor is? Even user pages can be vague unless the editor actually states they are male or female. Personal names don't help Stacey, Kimberley, Chris etc and as
for
edits [[Knitting]] and [[Women in prison film]] are not an indication.
Mysogeny doesn't work on Wikipedia for the simple reason that all the
female
editors I know are perhaps stronger willed or ready to cut the BS before
it
happens. Or is it mysogenist to suggest that?
mike33
Actually it works quite well if you disagree with something misogynist on Wikipedia--when you think comments like, "gotta keep the pimp hand strong" are offensive for example. (Although nicely it turned out to be a wimp hand, and ain't so strong anymore.)
So, you've never seen anything misogynist on Wikipedia? And if you have, did you speak up? Again, I suggest that certain people are more likely to notice it than others. And others, those comfortable being a member of the club as it is, less likely.
I've seen plenty, and when I've spoken up, I've been thoroughly put in my place, ganged up on by hords of male, and some female, editors ready to make sure that the boys continue to have a safe place to play.
Making a user box declaring yourself a pimp, and connecting it to the article on pimp, in the ordinary sense of "seller of sexual access to women's bodies for profit" sense, is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/30/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I think this thread needs to end if we continue to get so personal. Whatever my feelings on the need for a discussion about this kind of discrimination on Wikipedia, accusatory comments like "...is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all." are unacceptable. It may be that you were shouted down, even if you had legit arguments, because you ran around proclaiming everyone who disagreed with you to be a misogynist. Let's have a civil conversation, or none at all.
On 8/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
How many editors actually check what gender another editor is? Even user pages can be vague unless the editor actually states they are male or female. Personal names don't help Stacey, Kimberley, Chris etc and as
for
edits [[Knitting]] and [[Women in prison film]] are not an indication.
Mysogeny doesn't work on Wikipedia for the simple reason that all the
female
editors I know are perhaps stronger willed or ready to cut the BS before
it
happens. Or is it mysogenist to suggest that?
mike33
Actually it works quite well if you disagree with something misogynist on Wikipedia--when you think comments like, "gotta keep the pimp hand strong" are offensive for example. (Although nicely it turned out to be a wimp hand, and ain't so strong anymore.)
So, you've never seen anything misogynist on Wikipedia? And if you have, did you speak up? Again, I suggest that certain people are more likely to notice it than others. And others, those comfortable being a member of the club as it is, less likely.
I've seen plenty, and when I've spoken up, I've been thoroughly put in my place, ganged up on by hords of male, and some female, editors ready to make sure that the boys continue to have a safe place to play.
Making a user box declaring yourself a pimp, and connecting it to the article on pimp, in the ordinary sense of "seller of sexual access to women's bodies for profit" sense, is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all.
KP
I didn't call anyone a misogynist, another editor called someone's comment "misogynistic." I said that people were ignoring the potential and very real hurtful nature of the word in order to defend someone's supposedly modern use of it--it turned out the user was lying to everyone about his use of it, but that's another store. No, someone else used the term "misogynist."
And I didn't call you one by saying you're not offended by that--a legitimate comment because no one is outraged, surprised, or even interested by people proudly proclaiming themselves pimps on Wikipedia. And to me, this is outrageous that nobody even notices it.
And that, that women are degraded on Wikipedia without other editors even noticing it, is not civil in any way.
So, whenever I'm invited to a place where women can have civil conversations, without being degraded as part of the background noise, I'll be sure to let you know there's a place for a civil conversation. But when no one cares that folks are proud to declare themselves pimps, that that's not one of the user boxes or user names that is considered offensive on Wikipedia, even when it is linked to an article about pimp in the old fashioned sense of the word, not in the vernacular or modern or changed sense, there is no civility.
We're already having none at all. Civility is a long way off.
KP
Well, actually, I am quite offended by the wide usage of pimp as well. I would even say it's become the "faggot" of misogynistic terms. But honestly, though I support removing it from userboxes and such as hate speech (look out! loaded word) I think that Wikipedia is a microcosm of the larger problem, and sadly, I doubt you're going to get things changed on-wiki so long as the term is culturally acceptable off wiki.
On 8/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I think this thread needs to end if we continue to get so personal.
Whatever
my feelings on the need for a discussion about this kind of
discrimination
on Wikipedia, accusatory comments like "...is misogynist crap. But
you're
not offended at that at all." are unacceptable. It may be that you were shouted down, even if you had legit arguments, because you ran around proclaiming everyone who disagreed with you to be a misogynist. Let's
have a
civil conversation, or none at all.
On 8/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
How many editors actually check what gender another editor is? Even
user
pages can be vague unless the editor actually states they are male
or
female. Personal names don't help Stacey, Kimberley, Chris etc and
as
for
edits [[Knitting]] and [[Women in prison film]] are not an
indication.
Mysogeny doesn't work on Wikipedia for the simple reason that all
the
female
editors I know are perhaps stronger willed or ready to cut the BS
before
it
happens. Or is it mysogenist to suggest that?
mike33
Actually it works quite well if you disagree with something misogynist on Wikipedia--when you think comments like, "gotta keep the pimp hand strong" are offensive for example. (Although nicely it turned out to be a wimp hand, and ain't so strong anymore.)
So, you've never seen anything misogynist on Wikipedia? And if you have, did you speak up? Again, I suggest that certain people are more likely to notice it than others. And others, those comfortable being a member of the club as it is, less likely.
I've seen plenty, and when I've spoken up, I've been thoroughly put in my place, ganged up on by hords of male, and some female, editors ready to make sure that the boys continue to have a safe place to play.
Making a user box declaring yourself a pimp, and connecting it to the article on pimp, in the ordinary sense of "seller of sexual access to women's bodies for profit" sense, is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all.
KP
I didn't call anyone a misogynist, another editor called someone's comment "misogynistic." I said that people were ignoring the potential and very real hurtful nature of the word in order to defend someone's supposedly modern use of it--it turned out the user was lying to everyone about his use of it, but that's another store. No, someone else used the term "misogynist."
And I didn't call you one by saying you're not offended by that--a legitimate comment because no one is outraged, surprised, or even interested by people proudly proclaiming themselves pimps on Wikipedia. And to me, this is outrageous that nobody even notices it.
And that, that women are degraded on Wikipedia without other editors even noticing it, is not civil in any way.
So, whenever I'm invited to a place where women can have civil conversations, without being degraded as part of the background noise, I'll be sure to let you know there's a place for a civil conversation. But when no one cares that folks are proud to declare themselves pimps, that that's not one of the user boxes or user names that is considered offensive on Wikipedia, even when it is linked to an article about pimp in the old fashioned sense of the word, not in the vernacular or modern or changed sense, there is no civility.
We're already having none at all. Civility is a long way off.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/30/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, I am quite offended by the wide usage of pimp as well. I would even say it's become the "faggot" of misogynistic terms. But honestly, though I support removing it from userboxes and such as hate speech (look out! loaded word) I think that Wikipedia is a microcosm of the larger problem, and sadly, I doubt you're going to get things changed on-wiki so long as the term is culturally acceptable off wiki.
I never let reality dictate my actions. You're right, it is simply part of the larger problem, but that never means I'm willing to accept it anywhere.
KP
on 8/31/07 12:12 AM, Steven Walling at steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, I am quite offended by the wide usage of pimp as well. I would even say it's become the "faggot" of misogynistic terms. But honestly, though I support removing it from userboxes and such as hate speech (look out! loaded word) I think that Wikipedia is a microcosm of the larger problem, and sadly, I doubt you're going to get things changed on-wiki so long as the term is culturally acceptable off wiki.
Steven,
A culture, and the values it promotes, is formed by the members of a specific group of people. Can't Wikipedia have, and promote, one of its own? It's called setting an example - not following one.
Marc Riddell
On 8/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I think this thread needs to end if we continue to get so personal.
Whatever
my feelings on the need for a discussion about this kind of
discrimination
on Wikipedia, accusatory comments like "...is misogynist crap. But
you're
not offended at that at all." are unacceptable. It may be that you were shouted down, even if you had legit arguments, because you ran around proclaiming everyone who disagreed with you to be a misogynist. Let's
have a
civil conversation, or none at all.
On 8/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/30/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
How many editors actually check what gender another editor is? Even
user
pages can be vague unless the editor actually states they are male
or
female. Personal names don't help Stacey, Kimberley, Chris etc and
as
for
edits [[Knitting]] and [[Women in prison film]] are not an
indication.
Mysogeny doesn't work on Wikipedia for the simple reason that all
the
female
editors I know are perhaps stronger willed or ready to cut the BS
before
it
happens. Or is it mysogenist to suggest that?
mike33
Actually it works quite well if you disagree with something misogynist on Wikipedia--when you think comments like, "gotta keep the pimp hand strong" are offensive for example. (Although nicely it turned out to be a wimp hand, and ain't so strong anymore.)
So, you've never seen anything misogynist on Wikipedia? And if you have, did you speak up? Again, I suggest that certain people are more likely to notice it than others. And others, those comfortable being a member of the club as it is, less likely.
I've seen plenty, and when I've spoken up, I've been thoroughly put in my place, ganged up on by hords of male, and some female, editors ready to make sure that the boys continue to have a safe place to play.
Making a user box declaring yourself a pimp, and connecting it to the article on pimp, in the ordinary sense of "seller of sexual access to women's bodies for profit" sense, is misogynist crap. But you're not offended at that at all.
KP
I didn't call anyone a misogynist, another editor called someone's comment "misogynistic." I said that people were ignoring the potential and very real hurtful nature of the word in order to defend someone's supposedly modern use of it--it turned out the user was lying to everyone about his use of it, but that's another store. No, someone else used the term "misogynist."
And I didn't call you one by saying you're not offended by that--a legitimate comment because no one is outraged, surprised, or even interested by people proudly proclaiming themselves pimps on Wikipedia. And to me, this is outrageous that nobody even notices it.
And that, that women are degraded on Wikipedia without other editors even noticing it, is not civil in any way.
So, whenever I'm invited to a place where women can have civil conversations, without being degraded as part of the background noise, I'll be sure to let you know there's a place for a civil conversation. But when no one cares that folks are proud to declare themselves pimps, that that's not one of the user boxes or user names that is considered offensive on Wikipedia, even when it is linked to an article about pimp in the old fashioned sense of the word, not in the vernacular or modern or changed sense, there is no civility.
We're already having none at all. Civility is a long way off.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
K P wrote:
I didn't call anyone a misogynist, another editor called someone's comment "misogynistic." I said that people were ignoring the potential and very real hurtful nature of the word in order to defend someone's supposedly modern use of it--it turned out the user was lying to everyone about his use of it, but that's another store. No, someone else used the term "misogynist."
This is puzzling. I introduced the sentence "Gender relations falls apart when you start imputing misogynistic motives that were never there," but this is my first comment in the thread since then. The noun was first used in the thread at the very beginning by Durova. Which user are you suggesting was lying? Having opinions that differ from yours is not lying. I do resist any attempt to bring about political correctness, and having to cower over the use of a word because someone might find in its mere appearance an excuse for feeling hurt. Words have lives of their own, and they need to be read in a context, and that context is not always a literal one.
You said "There's a "this user is a pimp" user box.I put it on my user page along with a thousand others, and no one gives a shit." Duh! Who is going to plough through a thousand user boxes just to find that one offensive box? I am not a supporter of user boxes, and my first impression of a person with a thousand user boxes would be severe wariness about that person's egotism. A more accurate conclusion about those who don't give a shit, is that they don't give a shit about a lot of details on a user page. If, against all odds, they do find the offensive box, what do you expect them to do about it?
And I didn't call you one by saying you're not offended by that--a legitimate comment because no one is outraged, surprised, or even interested by people proudly proclaiming themselves pimps on Wikipedia. And to me, this is outrageous that nobody even notices it.
If someone calls himself a pimp that's his problem; I'm not about to feed that troll. You may find it outrageous, but it's perfectly predictable. How much effort do you expect people to put into finding them.
And that, that women are degraded on Wikipedia without other editors even noticing it, is not civil in any way.
It's hard to be uncivil about something that one does not notice.
So, whenever I'm invited to a place where women can have civil conversations, without being degraded as part of the background noise, I'll be sure to let you know there's a place for a civil conversation. But when no one cares that folks are proud to declare themselves pimps, that that's not one of the user boxes or user names that is considered offensive on Wikipedia, even when it is linked to an article about pimp in the old fashioned sense of the word, not in the vernacular or modern or changed sense, there is no civility.
We're already having none at all. Civility is a long way off.
That's a completely different problem aout people doing whatever they can to protect their POV. When they choose to act without civility the gender of their opponent doesn't matter to them,
Ec
On 8/31/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
K P wrote:
I didn't call anyone a misogynist, another editor called someone's comment "misogynistic." I said that people were ignoring the potential and very real hurtful nature of the word in order to defend someone's supposedly modern use of it--it turned out the user was lying to everyone about his use of it, but that's another store. No, someone else used the term "misogynist."
This is puzzling. I introduced the sentence "Gender relations falls apart when you start imputing misogynistic motives that were never there," but this is my first comment in the thread since then. The noun was first used in the thread at the very beginning by Durova. Which user are you suggesting was lying?
This comment is directed at the comments I brought up about a discussion and events that took place on Wikipedia, not about this thread or anyone in this discussion, except my direct responses.
KP