Welcome to the GFW discussion hub Edit
If you are new here, please read:
Older discussions are eventually (after about a year, at this point) archived. See Talk:Meta:Community Portal/Archive.
Dance community anti-harassment effortsEdit
It was suggested to me that you might be interested that I've been doing work to adapt the Conference Anti-Harassment Policy to be suitable for social dance venues and weekend-long events. Here's the current draft. Still a long way to go, esp. in terms of getting people to adopt it. If you have any feedback, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it.
Geek Feminine Wiki RevitalizationEdit
First, it can be helpful to have a resource like the Geek Feminism Wiki. It could be a place for women to go, to find links to projects, connections to those who might help them, resources for conferences, speaking opportunities, users groups, and so on. Originally, I thought that was the intent and vision of the site, but maybe that was my personal vision for it. ;-)
As with most websites, over time, a voice emerges, a presence. Right now, my sense is that this site is much more aligned with a political point of view than technology. It also seems that the aspect of feminism that is addressed is more focused on the challenges encountered than it is on the success women are having and how lessons might come from those experiences.
Combining those focuses, the site has an angry voice, and rightly so, given the topic focus, and with that comes vengeness. I think that is a fair word, and very possibly one that the organizers might not disagree with. The incidents pages, the name and shame approach, is not welcoming. I
I do believe this site in any represents a broad swath of women in technology, From my perspective, this site represents a very narrow point of view. Are you willing to involve others to help redefine the site so that it does represent more than the unfortunate and negative events but also the successes we can celebrate and emulate?
In the interest of clarity and openness, my hope would be that we can remove the incidents sections completely. Adopt more of a learning approach where we actually embrace those issues, explain other ways something might be done, reach out, use humor, put a huge focus on incidents that are intent on increasing involvement of women, and head that direction, leaving behind the more punative approach.
I believe this could be a real benefit to the geek community, as a whole. My perception is that everyone would like to see better involvement with women. There is fear of this group. When people are afraid, they cannot learn. I would hope we could address those perceptions and turn it around so that the community looks at this group as a support, not a judge, jury, and executioner, but rather those people who listen and care and help and take me as I am.
If those things sound good, I would like to help and find others to help as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this idea
- Hi there AmyStephen. I think that the Timeline of Incidents page is a positive force for change. When we put our history in a public forum, it is available to all of us. The idea of a judge, jury, and executioner is quite different from the idea of a public forum where people describe things that have happened and that have been reported on.
- What your message sounds like to me is that you would like to reach out to be a teacher and educator. Some people do that work best by assimiliating into the culture they are trying to reach. For others, that assimiliation may not be possible, or may not be desired at all. And if you would like to take an approach that focuses around "success", there is plenty of that effort here as well -- but also in other organizations and public fora.
- Isn't there room for more than one approach, here? There are so many efforts to support women and others in our field. I think it best for you to seek out the ones that exist that are more in alignment with the approach you want to take -- rather than trying to erase the work of so many of us -- work that we regularly are thanked for doing. --Liz Henry (talk) 20:08, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, especially your friendly tone. Absolutely, there is room for more than one approach, in fact, that is my point, the point of view on this site is very narrow. Groups, over time, self-select, so tends to happen. But, in the end, the perspective on this site, IMO, does not represent a broader group of what "Geek Feminism" is about in our communities.
- it's not a matter of erasing someone's hard work. The concern has to be fairness since this does impact negatively people's reputations. In many cases, I do not agree the act was in any way that an incident is sexist or displays sexism. Let me give a couple of examples.
- Example one:
- Dries mentioned that the (gender neutral) Druplicon (Drupal's mascot) would likely have a sex scandal by the year 2020.
- So, how is that sexist? How is that even a concern? Does everyone understand this is a graphic that looks like a drop of water?
- Example two:
- Later, as Dries was discussing goals for the Drupal project, he used "stay at home moms with a tupperware business" as a user story for the people he would like to see using Drupal. This may have gone over fine had he not specifically sited them as being on the "low" end of the technical spectrum.
- To me, it sounds like there is a lack of appreciation for women who stay at home and have tupperware businesses. If it's the "low end of the technical spectrum" aspect that then qualified this as misogyny, then I would ask why this is seen as anything other than "but of course, that is exactly how that persona should be defined."
- If it is believed that this market segment has higher skill in technology, and that Dries was incorrect in his assessment of where these skills are truly at, then let me ask do you honestly believe a large percentage of people with strong technology skill are going to sell tupperware?
- Not only is his point correct and factual and valid but it is GOOD that he is looking at these women and trying to ensure Drupal works for them, too. Not all women are professionals, like we are, in fact most are not. Reaching those women with low technical skills means OPPORTUNITY.
- If you are suggesting he is sexist if he only focuses on women with skills, then you are, maybe without realizing it, encouraging an approach that further disenfranchises women who do not have strong skills from ever acquiring them. Drupal is a gateway to skill.
- In this case, what would be sexist would be IF Dries drew a big red X on the group and said "This group is just women without skill, they are not worth our time. Ignore them." But he said the opposite. He said, "This segment is female, low in technical skill. How do we reach them?." That's AWESOME.
- That is not sexist, at all. In fact, it's cause for celebration. It should be lifted up and shared as the kind of thinking other projects should have. Reach out, even to those who are disenfrachised or close to it.
- In my opinion, these two must to be removed, they are not sexist in the least. There are more like this.
- How do incidents get included?
- It might help to understand, to publish criteria since it is harmful to people. You would never want to have it seem like a personal vindetta or not liking someone be a reason or an accusation externally as to why events are listed.
- What are the criteria:
- - What criteria is used to evaluate an event to validate it is sexist or sexism?
- - Who makes the decision? What can we make certain the POV in this group represents the community?
- - What interaction, if any, is made with the accused, prior to publishing the information?
- - What can they do to recify the problem and therefore avoid the shaming?
- - What is the protest process if others disagree with the event inclusion or the manner in which it is described?
- I don't mind working through this slowly and nailing down the criteria and processes. I have more questions, examples, but that's probably enough for now. I'll let you guys kind of think about it, see if my comments shed a different light that seems logical.
- Again, your friendly response is so appreciated. Thank you.
- AmyStephen (talk) 21:20, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Hi folks - any feedback? Thanks.
- 184.108.40.206 00:47, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not finding your comments to be constructive, Amy, and agree with Liz that you might prefer to seek out a space that's better suited to where you're at. As a general rule, the wiki editors have all dealt with a lot of the sort of undermining of the existence of sexism that your comments exhibit, and I'm personally quite tired of explaining introductory feminism when there are already plenty of educational resources for that online. I had initially blocked you because of your edits to Sexualized environment that were effectively calling us "sexist" for pointing out that sexism exists. I unblocked you because (at least) Liz engaged with your comments, but I'm still not seeing much here but the same ol' arguments I've heard over and over from the broader, kyriarchal culture. Monadic (talk) 01:15, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
When is documentation perpetrating harassment?Edit
Discussion moved from a private mailing list thread. You will need to take my word for it that these people aren't concern trolls or in general opposed to either this wiki or Timeline of incidents.
Private mailing list thread had the following problems with some detailed reporting of incidents:
- quoting abusive comments extensively or showing abusive images (eg photoshopped ones, etc) actually gives a louder voice to the abuser
- our wiki may rank quite high in Google or Google Image searches for a victim's name, making their vulnerability and pain apparent to casual searchers for their name
- I think these are both serious concerns. (2) seems a little easier to address: we could use pseudonyms or descriptions of the victim rather than their name. Of course, this may undermine the purpose of documenting (trolls could question that we're really talking about a real incident if a real name isn't used). I'm not sure how to balance those concerns.
- (1) seems harder because it can be hard to convey the seriousnessness of a particular incident without direct quotes or images. I have also wondered whether criticisms of an incident (not on this wiki, though) that used images that were abusive -- in order to point and say "this is bad" -- were inadvertently repeating the harm done by those images. I don't have a good answer. Monadic (talk) 23:01, March 20, 2013 (UTC)