David Gerard wrote: This is not anything but anecdotal, however it may shed some light: when I was in high school, I signed up for wood shop - and the instructor ignored me. It was as though I were inaudible and invisible. He would hand out materials for an assignment, except I didn't get any. If stood in front of him with my hands out, I did receive a cold stare until I moved - but not a scrap of wood. If I reached for a tool, he grabbed it first or took it out of my hands. If I asked a question, there was no reply - none. This is not an exaggeration. I don't know how bad it is now, but then... it was bad. I dropped out of shop. To this day I don't know much about practical woodworking. In recent years, I have observed meetings where women were ignored or dismissed. If a man said something people responded to his words - if a woman said something then she got a verbal pat on the head. In my office, where there were 57 people, mostly men, the women cleaned the kitchen/break room always, and made the coffee more often than men - including the head of the office, a woman with a doctorate and 35 years in her field. It was easier than dealing with trying to get the men to do any of it. And this is in software development, a field with less earnings gap than almost any other field in the US. So why do women leave technical fields? I'm guessing it is because they are full of men, men with bias. I don't want to sound misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the kitchen. -kc-

On 11/22/06, Tony Jacobs <gtjacobs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: You failed to say when though. Men generally will clean kitchens but only when they view them as unacceptably dirty. This is I suspect the problem. -- geni

geni wrote: They could have been theoretical feminists, eh? And I worked there for almost nine years. No man ever cleaned the kitchen, the entire time I was there. Every so often a woman would mention a rotating roster, so the same people would not always be cleaning the kitchen - but the men always shouted it down. Once we went on strike - didn't clean. When the kitchen got too nasty, the men started going out to lunch. One said, the refrigerator in the breakroom is starting to smell. I said, why don't you clean it then? He said, I'm not the maid. I said, we don't have a maid, who do you think has been cleaning the kitchen? And he said, That's right, why don't you clean the kitchen? No lie. He was one of the worst offenders though. He belonged to some church which believed women should subjugate themselves to men, and he had a hard time taking orders from women - not me, he didn't report to me, but he did report to a woman. The situation worsened, and everyone of the men was complaining. We kept asking, why don't you clean it then? And one of the other men said, if we wait long enough one of the women will clean it. He was an avowed feminist. Right. And four women finally cleaned the kitchen when bigwigs from corporate were coming. It seems the men were right - if they waited long enough, a woman would do it. I went to the corporate office several times, and guess who was cleaning the breakroom? A woman. I'm not claiming my experience and observation hold true everywhere, but there was a study a few years ago - two career households, who did most of the housework - and, more tellingly, what the perception was. Men evaluated the share of the housework they did. Women almost always evaluated their share as larger than their significant others did - if the man said 50/50, the woman would say something like 20/80, or 10/90. Guess what? The men did a lot less than they thought. I cannot locate the study but this seems similar: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445(198111)43%3A4%3C865%3ADPWHEM%3E2… "in order not to cross identity tension lines, today's professional women are going through a process of role expansion (adding new responsibilities without relinquishing old ones), rather than a process of role redefinition "And its still true: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060728/ai_n16635205.. Study after study bears this out. Women with careers simply do it all. This study found that women doctors devote just as much time to patients and workload as men doctors, yet devote a great deal more time to domestic duties: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00629.x So women with careers don't get equal support on the domestic front. And this carries over to work - men simply don't realize for the most part how much housework there is. It is done, you see. They "pitch in" and feel they are supporting their wife - yet when their wife does domestic chores, they do not view it as their wife "pitching in" and helping the husband. I'm not sure how much of this is societal, how much is basic differences. We cannot neglect the fact that it is women who bear children, either - even if you take the minimum off from work, your career suffers somewhat. If you have complications it suffers even more. The average woman has gaps in her work history due to children, which a man does not have. This helps keep the wage gap wide, and I think many men - subconsciously or not - feel that if they are making 80% of the money and the woman is making 20% of the money, then a little calculator in his head, buried deep, figures that he only needs to do 20% of the housework. A woman with the same degree and experience as a man makes about 77% the salary, for the same education, experience, and hours at work. Add in lost experience due to having a family, and the gap widens. These statistics are US. Perceptions are still off, also: a recent study shows that women are currently *under* estimating the amount of housework men do: http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20050520-workfamily.html which shows that women (on average, based on this study) believe men do 33% of the housework, but the men actually do an average of 39% of the housework - but the men think they do an average of 42% of the housework, so they are still overestimating their contribution. The recent change to women underestimating the effort men put forth may be discouraging to men, however - it seems likely. It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it? Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations (Pavlovian training)? The email which started this thread talked about "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me. I'm going off to see if Nail polish could use a "woman's touch" - heaven forfend I actually put any chemistry into the darn article. (yes this is sarcasm, I have no intention of editing Nail polish.) -kc, who has run on enough about a social issue with no direct bearing on Wikipedia

Sarah wrote: Names are more important than you think. "Throbbing Monster Cock" could never be elected. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 11/22/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: They spoiled the experiment. Haveing seen the kitchens in all male student acomerdation I can well belive it. If cleaning is left to whoever cracks first it tends to be the woman who end up doing it. Not sure how this applies to wikipedia though. I don't know the gender of most of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Members/Members_by… The average woman is likely to know more about blow dryers than the average man (sure there are men with long hair but they are something of a minority even amoung geeks) Chemistry mostly covered unless people want to go into details of the dyes. -- geni

David Gerard wrote: If you are interested: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v006kt042w30045r/ http://www.american.edu/sadker/thereportcard.htm http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/168 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_30/ai_105478982 http://www.maec.org/beyond.html And from this last link: *GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS* Although most teachers believe that they treat girls and boys the same, research indicates that they frequently do not. Studies show that teachers often exhibit differential behavior even though circumstances do not warrant it. The teacher' sex seems to have little bearing on the outcome; it is the sex of the student that seems to make a difference. For example: * Male students receive more of the teacher's attention (acceptance, praise, criticism, and remediation) and are given more time to talk in class from pre-school through college.^8 * Although differences among subject matter areas have not been well examined, recent research has found student-teacher interaction in science classes to be biased toward boys.^9 * Sex is a factor in the assignment of students to ability groups in mathematics, and males are more likely to be assigned to the high ability group.^10 * Males receive harsher punishment than girls even for the same or a similar offense.^11 * Teachers ask boys more higher order questions than they ask girls.^12 Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Tony Jacobs wrote: It's so bad for boys that Newsweek actually published a story about it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/ "Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls." A quick Google gives me some links: http://www.washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20060122-120546-2696r.htm They point out that boys: Receive the majority of D and F grades given to students in most schools, as high as 70 percent. Create 80 percent of classroom discipline problems. Account for 80 percent of high school dropouts. Represent 70 percent of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 80 percent of those diagnosed with behavioral disorders. http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html A very famous article (if you've been following the issue) that also debunks the self-esteem canard.

On 11/23/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: I think that both are true. Boys do get a raw deal in a lot of ways - boys have two options - either internalise the idea of how horrible they are and be left with no positive ideas about their gender, or they can embrace how horrible men are, and live up the stereotype. Neither leaves much self-esteem, which hurts them in school. If I don't think that the decline in male performance has been due to shifts in teaching styles. At the university level there has been a movement away from top-down lecturing (which works better with male students than with female students) to more interactive, "cooperative learning"-based ideas, which resonate better with female students. But male students do well with that as well - rather than favouring female learning over male learning, what I have seen is a shift from something that favours male learning to something that is less biased toward one gender or the other. Now that eliminates a large virtual advantage for males, but it doesn't explain the decline in male performance academically in absolute terms. As an undergrad I had an older, very male-biased professor, who used to lament the decline in young men. Of course, in a class of 25 majors there were only 3 male students. But his main complaint was that his daughterss female friends were intelligent people who you could carry out a conversation with, while their male friends were only capable of one-word communications.

Personally, I am not a big fan of statistics or labelling. But tell me more about this females soaring above the males in education. On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So does anyone have any practical ideas to fix these "problems," or should we just sit around wailing about how horrible it is that the sexes are different? -- Sean Barrett | The only thing we have to fear is fear itself-- sean(a)epoptic.com | nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror | which paralyzes needed efforts to convert | retreat into advance. --Franklin D. Roosevelt

Fred Bauder wrote: <snip> Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda. When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here. Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now, if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment? -kc-

Fred Bauder wrote: I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does. One puppy's opinion

Puppy wrote: Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place? --Jimbo

I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance. It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face of overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to swallowing cyanide because a con man told you it was safe). That several of us noted the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem exists here, and needs to be remedied. Alas, I do not think that that remedy is to merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with reason. Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as gender bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within the psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real world and at Wikipedia). However, it is certainly worth our every effort to do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and protects the bigoted and biased. On 11/25/06, Puppy &lt;puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com&gt; wrote: -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: Speaking strictly for myself, I would have accepted a simple "That was inappropriate. I apologize." So far as I can tell, you (Alphax) and I are dialogueing with no continuing recriminations or incivility, and I have no wish to pursue the incident any further, with the exception that the general lack of response to the remark has become a secondary, yet larger, issue. -kc-

On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: Just say you are sorry and get it over with. Then sin no more. I think most of us are aware that there is an element of trolling involved in this thread, but there are also real problems which we need to deal with effectively. Fred

Puppy wrote: The comments were inappropriate, and I'm sorry for making them. The response is sadly lacking, and I'm sorry for contributing to an atmosphere that discourages appropriate responses. The situation is a mess, and I'm sorry for having started it. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander. Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering. Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people. Then get back to work. On 11/25/06, Jim Schuler &lt;jim62sch(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

James Hare wrote: That's a bit simplistic, IMHO. "Bad people"? Truly horrific cases, like the person who vandalized SlimVirgin's user page about a year ago, I have no problem calling "bad people" and banning. But the overall atmosphere, the lack of concern, that is not so clear cut. I just received yet /another/ email from a women, and I replied asking why she didn't post to this list? and she replied that /she was afraid of being attacked/ if she did. Now, obviously I don't suffer from the same intimidation - but it seems I am more an anomaly than I realized. I am concerned I sound like a rabid feminist, which I'm not - but the volume of email I am receiving tells me there is an issue. And simply "kicking out the bad people" won't work. The "bad people" is us. -kc-

On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:33 AM, James Hare wrote: If truly "bad people" could be identified, sure. But not a remedy available to deal with those who did not criticize sexist remarks. Or to deal with someone who obviously knows he is in the wrong, despite lack of an explicit apology. Our work here is to discuss issues such as this. Fred

On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Sean Barrett wrote: That response is just another way of saying I'm afraid to post because I might be attacked. Fred

Sean Barrett wrote: <snip> Shall we get back to Wikipedia: Arbeit macht die freie Enzyklopädie, and does Godwin approve? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote: What are the assumptions? Fred

Sean Barrett wrote: regarding #1: I assumed the precise opposite until this thread. regarding #2: Bit dramatic, aren't you? Try rephrasing with less sturm und drang. Regarding both: Who are you saying made those assumptions? -kc-

On Nov 25, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Sean Barrett wrote: While the Arbcom is prepared to tromp all over overt misogyny, I think most problems are too subtle to come to our attention in the form of a case. Or occur off-wiki on other sites. Actually I, and I think most other arbitrators, routinely work on problems presented by off-wiki harassment and attempts to ferret out personal information. This work is informal and often not a part of an actual case. Fred

On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Sean Barrett wrote: Perhaps those assumptions explain the drama, but I would advance these assumptions for work: We have problems, but could do better. Dialog is productive. Fred

On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote: Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman is oppressing. Fred

On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Sean Barrett wrote: That is what they do. They imagine a Wikipedia administrator as some sort of spider queen with a host of minions. Fred

On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett &lt;sean(a)epoptic.com&gt; wrote: Actually that doesn't always work. While the instances of which I am aware may not be representative, it seems like most (but by no means all) of the instances where editors have been harrassed at home or work have involved female editors. We don't have much by way to tools to protect against things like that.

On 11/25/06, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info&gt; wrote: Perhaps the worst cases of material harm to our users that we've seen are to users who thought there were anonymous and edited in ways which they wouldn't want made public... only to later discover that anonymity is terribly fragile. We're not an anonymity service. Anonymity is by it's very nature terribly fragile. We take a great risk of causing harm if we encourage people to believe they are more anonymous than they actually are. The world is a scary place at time, we can't solve that. We can, and do, avoid our own project being a fertile breeding grow for the worst of the loons. We need to keep focused on culling the worst and not waste our time with impossible goals like providing a nutcase free zone or providing unbreakable anonymity.

On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett &lt;sean(a)epoptic.com&gt; wrote: Sean, one thing that would help is for editors who are doing it to be banned without hesitation, and admins to be desysopped. Currently, even that isn't happening. It might not stop the attacks, but it's pretty galling to have to edit alongside someone who's engaged in trying to track down your personal details on an attack site; even more galling when that person is a Wikipedia administrator. Sarah

I, too, don't see Alphax's comments as anything other than ill-conceived, rather than/as opposed to fully hateful. On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett &lt;sean(a)epoptic.com&gt; wrote:

Stan Shebs wrote: I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did. Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied. -kc-

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: I don't have a solution. I do, however, now recognize there is a serious problem. I didn't add anything to the recent threads about trying to increase female participation in WP because I had no idea why women would /not/ be editing, standing for admin, standing for arbcom, etc. Now I know at least one reason, and it is something I can do something about. It appears I'm one of those "thick skinned" women Keitei refers to - I didn't even think there was much of a problem until this started, as I've said. I have now received multiple emails from different women, all stating they are intimidated and afraid to post on this list, and thanking me for talking about this. The mere fact that gender bias is being discussed seems to be encouraging to them. I think we may need to adopt a vigilant attitude towards sexist comments, and not ever let them slide or slip under the radar. If there is a concerted message that sexist comments are not welcome, gradually the climate should change. As Larry Pieniazek pointed out, we cannot change the world - but we can change how we respond to sexism in our little sphere of influence, which includes all things wp - wp itself, this mailing list, and yes irc. We have no control over irc, of course, yet if there is concerted response towards any sexism, it should have an effect. I am speaking here of personal responsibility, not Wikipedia policy or responsibility. It behooves us to remember that what may seem like a "shrug it off" comment to us, to women who are already intimidated, it may be the kiss of death insofar as their participation in Wikipedia is concerned. Keitei said "I am afraid to say anything about feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here for not speaking up." If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women. Sean Barrett is apparently mocking any concern, if I understand his emails correctly. This is not conducive to women feeling free to voice concerns, and goes beyond "allowed and overlooked" into outright hostility - if women are already afraid, mocking their concerns is definitely adding to and exacerbating the problem. Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas? -kc-

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jim Schuler stated for the record: More of point #2: any questioning of the assumptions renders the questioner irredeemably worthless as a human being. I really wish I were being over-dramatic. - -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean(a)epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.

On 11/25/06, Puppy &lt;puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com&gt; wrote: End this painful thread, its forking off child threads that my mailer isn't able to keep together. I honestly thought the OP was trolling and ignored the thread.... So I was happily ignoring the thread until I saw Kat post .... I saw that it was even worse than I expected it do be, so I tried to continue to ignore it... but it's getting rather hard now. The argument appeared to be of the form of "Look at [[indisputably bad thing X]]. How can we reduce the harm thing Y is causing.", where the blanks were filled in with "our bad coverage of subjects which tend to be more interesting to woman" and "the material biases in our caused by the over-representation of men in our decision making". Bad examples (in my house it's me that uses the hair drier, I'm as able to write about them as any typical woman, .. it's just that no one finds hair driers interesting) notwithstanding... The fallacy here is that no suggestion was ever made that thing Y even exists, much less is related to bad thing X. This is the same form of argument we see in posts Gregory Kohs, where he points out the deletion of some marginally notable corporate stub and then waves his hands asking us what to do with this corporate bias. Why must we start off viewing poor coverage of ballet as some kind of insidious bias against women? Because that agrees with someone's agenda? ... Why not consider it a part of a larger unevenness of coverage, and look for solutions which work independently of the root cause? ... Because a 17 year old doesn't care that our coverage is biased in favor of pop-culture when compared against subjects interesting to the blue-hairs? In any case, the attacking tone this thread has taken.. especially by those who are claiming to be attacked is especially troublesome. I was and am honestly afraid to post my thoughts as a result of it. I think you should take a step back and think about that before replying.

Gregory Maxwell wrote: Why do you find this thread intimidating? And who has claimed to be attacked, and counter-attacked? I am not being flippant, I am truly puzzled, and would appreciate clarification. Thanks - -kc-

Drawing an odd inference there -- if anything was implied it was that silence is tolerance of misogyny, not misogyny itself. On 11/25/06, Stan Shebs &lt;stanshebs(a)earthlink.net&gt; wrote: -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

Huh? On 11/26/06, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Puppy stated for the record: Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling. Guettarda began attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation." So, please explain: Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining from responding a virtue? If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable? Demonize enough people vigorously enough, and some of them will, oddly, decide that since they have been cast in it, they might as well enjoy the role. - -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean(a)epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.

Matthew Brown wrote: Second that. -kc-

Puppy wrote: <snip> Trolling rarely rates a comment. I'm sorry that you took me seriously. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote: It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of Wikipedia Review. Fred

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote: None of that is acceptable. Fred

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: Do better personally and not tolerate such behavior from others. However, we cannot, by taking thought on it, cause more women to edit. We can only encourage and support. Fred

On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:11 AM, niht-hræfn wrote: In at least 3 cases they have been targeted by off-wiki sites, but so have prominent males. There has to be some crack in the armor for effective targeting, but simply being female and aggressive seems to serve. Fred

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: Where has anyone done those things? The simple answer is: kick the bad people out, end of story. --Jimbo

Some of the worst ignorant bias toward Wikipedians that I've seen isn't even on the wiki. On 11/24/06, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info&gt; wrote:

On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That's true, but they still get more attention - in fact, they get even more attention from male teachers because there is concern about male achievement. I'm in a field which is overwhelmingly female at the undergrad level, predominantly female at the grad student level, and predominantly male at the tenured faculty level. And it isn't because the demographics have shifted recently, it's because of retention of women in grad school and in academia beyond grad school. And a large part of it has to do with the fact that professors are more encouraging to male students and junior faculty. While the best students are usually female, it's the one male student who performs well who gets most of the attention. Of course, it's also the male students who are socialised to take the initiative and chat with the professors. I've spent a lot of time in classroom situations, both as a student and as a teacher. Over the course of the semester you get to know certain groups of students who you can chat with as you wander around the lab. Somehow there are always more knots of male students who talk to you than there are groups of female students (the lab I teach is mostly non-majors, and it's about even in terms of gender ratio).