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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/30/07, michael west <michawest(a)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 >

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 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.