You are right, of course, what we do is bad enough, without having to answer for the expectations of what our gender is expected to do.
Fred > 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.stie...@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@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
