On 11/21/06, niht-hræfn <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote: Do you have specific examples which come to mind, or is this a generic concern? I have seen such things happen in the past in smaller groups, but larger sets of people tend to have less such problems. WP policy has seemed pretty neutral to me, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm not seeing something that's there. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 11/21/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: Without meaning it to be a big point in this issue, I just want to point out that "Oh, women probably have better things to do!" has been a rationale to dismiss evidence of non-equal participation for a long, long time. Like, "Oh, but women get to know the joy of motherhood, which is far more exciting than politics or a good career," it sounds like a compliment on the surface of it but it usually masks explicit or implicit acceptance of a limiting status quo. I'm not trying to imply anything about Fred's personal views on this, but I just want to point out that I'm not sure this a fruitful approach and it is one with pretty bad precedents. I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness, argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know. FF

Sarah wrote: Simone de Beauvior once said there are two types of people: Human beings and women, and that when women act like human beings, they are accused of trying to be men. -kc

Sarah wrote: Anyway, COI policy now strongly recommends that only baldies (which may be of either gender) edit [[Blowdryer]], right? :-) But to be serious again, it's not necessarily the *users* of a tool who are the most interested in it - a better contributor is likely to be the ultra-nerd whose library includes all the books ever published on small personal appliances, and a nearly-complete collection of historically significant blowdryers. There are plenty of women on this list; perhaps they could opine on whether there is significant systemic bias genderwise? Stan

Puppy wrote: Now you see what happens when I don't have a preview button. Apologies to all for getting irritated... -puppy, chastised by self

niht-hræfn wrote: Now women's health issues is important, and it would concern me should they be neglected. Blow dryers probably gets neglected for the same reason can opener is a stub - it simply isn't that notable a topic compared to WWII, or menstruation. This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person". Why all the variations on "menstrual" point to one article is probably due to the fact that they are so close to synonymous that to split them would be introducing redundancy. The only subjects of which I am aware which are over-subdivided, if you will, are politically or religiously charged subjects. Hence, Abortion is an enormous cascade of articles, because people have strong views, there is a legal debate, a religious debate, etc - but no one is arguing about a woman's menstrual cycle. I could be in error, but that is how it appears to me. -kc-

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: ? Either I'm misunderstanding you, or I've just been insulted. -kc-

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: Then I've been insulted. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I hoped I was merely misunderstanding your intent. It is entirely possible you have misunderstood me; if you confine yourself to making sarcastic remarks and insulting me, I cannot judge and cannot clarify for you. What purpose do you intend your insults to serve, or do you merely enjoy insulting others without any sort of constructive criticism or meaningful dialogue? -kc-

On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I really hope I'm misunderstanding your comments, Alphax. I note, as a data point, that I've never felt myself to be on the receiving end of slights on-wiki for being female (dealings with a certain banned user or two excepted) -- but kc has a point, and a well-expressed one at that. And if you don't think so, you're welcome to say so in a more constructive and intelligent fashion than you did here. -Kat -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com

On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Actually it was a very interesting and informative thread until you came along and started making misogynistic comments. But good move on moderating yourself (though it's always better to just shut up when you can't help but be a bigot)

On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: WTF? I don't know what's more wrong with that statement - its blatent misogyny, or the fact that it's an empty-headed, shallow and just plain incorrect statemen (quite unlike KC's carefully rational argument supported by both anecdote and data) OK, I'm convinced - time to go clean the kitchen so that I can actually get my contribution to housework up to the 10% I think I do...

On 11/22/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: I've just read through some of these threads on gender bias and the low numbers of women in arbcom and WP in general. Like KC-Puppy, I too am a programmer. I recall once at a company where I worked, I was the senior programmer training a new junior programmer who was male. The newly hired vice president approached us to discuss a project and it soon became obvious that he assumed the male programmer was my superior and that I must be his secretary! I've regularly experienced this sort of gender-bias attitude in a variety of settings, and Wikipedia is not exempt. Now at Wikipedia, even though gender is more hidden behind ambiguous usernames, there still exists a bit of a boy's club. Editors who don't know me or neglect to notice the "This user is a mother" userbox on my user page often tend to assume the "M" in MPerel likely stands for "Mike" and I get the accompanying slap-on-the-back attempted male-bonding sort of treatment. Often, I find it easier to let people assume I am a "dude", though in doing that, I find myself holding back contributing since I realize of course that I make quite a mediocre male and fall short of the ability to exhibit the predominantly-valued male qualities. For me it's not a matter of being intimidated (I have healthy self-esteem), but it's just that my outlook and approach to problem-solving doesn't fit the dominant male-oriented mold, and I ask myself, why should I waste my time and effort in areas where it isn't valued? Occasionally an editor who has discovered I am female dismisses me as an air-headed ditz. I was going to provide a link to the most agregious misogynistic example I personally experienced, but it has apparently been deleted, perhaps since it outed my presumed location. Basically I was mercilessly mocked with demeaning sexist ridicule when I tried to address a particular conflict on a talk page from what I consider my more female perspective. Even without the blatant misogynist trolls, subtle attitudes and assumptions exist that are often presumptive, demeaning and dismissive of women and female ways of looking at things. There is a bias favoring male aggressiveness, although if a female editor exhibits assertiveness she is often treated and labeled as queen bitch and is summarily harrassed and persecuted. I've seen the harrassment that the few prominent females have endured and frankly it has deterred me from being a more active participant or from pursuing any official leadership role as I don't see the need to subject myself to that kind of treatment. I've been a Wikipedian for years but I still continue to regularly put off admin nomination offers because I hesitate to make myself a target. I think the gender bias problem is bigger (yet perhaps more subtle) than some think. ~Miri not Mike! (MPerel)