[Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.

[ChaoticFluffy]

Thanks for posting this, Sarah. I was hesitant to link to it while it was an
active thread. My basic feeling in this case was that the user's comments
weren't *particularly* terrible, and all of us who are sensitive to gender
issues have probably seen way worse. A block may well have been overkill in
this situation. However, I'm concerned that the way that thread played it
out gave an overwhelmingly strong impression that "oh, you're not a woman"
sort of comments are completely fine, and that anyone who says otherwise is
a PC, tiny, reactive minority. I was really disappointed to be the only
person who showed up to that thread who could understand how the comments
could even be *perceived* as a problem. Just when we think gender concerns
may be penetrating the wiki's consciousness, we get something like and I go,
"...oh. Sigh."

There's nothing to be done with regard to this particular case at this
point, and I hasten to ask that people not descend on the (now-close)
thread, or the (now-unblocked) user. But I would like to see a conversation
about how we can address this sort of "Of COURSE it's fine!" attitude.

-Fluffernutter

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_for_Baseball_Bugs
>
> The first "unblock" statement shares the link to the joke and the reprimand
> by an admin on the users page telling them they can get blocked for ongoing
> comments like that. Fluffernutter points out that there is a "boyzone" in
> Wikipedia and that it's not right to mock a users gender. I do appreciate
> Fluffernuter speaking up about this, I know it's not always something that
> she likes to get mixed up with (so to say - as we talked about in IRC
> today).
>
> A dialogue takes place ranging from people thinking the joke wasn't sexist,
> to Fluffernutter is being "PC".
>
> I don't believe that the user the joke was directed at participates in the
> conversation - for all we know they might have not been offended - but, this
> is just another example of how people seem to be unclear about what "sexist"
> behavior is.
>
> Where I've worked and attended school, it was always very clear that
> behavior or comments like that were/are not prohibited, but more often than
> not, people don't speak up when people behave poorly (silent victims).
> Unlike on Wikipedia, where people generally do speak up - the shroud of the
> internet, I suppose.
>
> Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an educational environment. And when people
> have to start questioning "Is this offensive or not? Is it sexist or not?"
> then clearly there is a problem with something in the culture and system.
>
> -Sarah Stierch
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20111012/bae7b926/attachment.htm