From Mindspillage
Things I've posted and assorted thoughts on gender and feminism.
On the creation of the "wikichix" list, which was restricted to women only."
I'm not sure how I feel about a women's-only list.
On the one hand, I'm genuinely surprised at how many women have experienced real chilling sexism on the wiki, and I'd like to know when it happens, who does it, what sort of patterns there are to it. I've been the target of creepy harassment, and vandals/trolls will occasionally sling female-specific insults, but I've never noticed myself targeted in genuine discussion because of my gender rather than what I've actually said. (I have never been anonymous, but for some time I generally signed with my username instead of my name.)
On the other hand, I'm not sure of the idea of a list with membership exclusive to women. Aside from the idea that we really don't know who anyone is online (not counting those of us who have met in person!), I think productive discussion of the issues facing women and gender bias on Wikipedia would benefit also from male input. In particular, I don't want to exclude those who want to participate who aren't women. I'd prefer to see a special interest list for gender bias/related issues with more open membership—though I would expect it would be mostly women—rather than a general-purpose women's list. (Potentially with a heavy-handed banning policy, if it's necessary to keep the atmosphere appropriate.) I also don't want to see good discussions get segregated from and never seen by the main lists!
As a note to my own experience, I'm accustomed to being in a primarily-male environment. I minored in math and CS, often being the only woman in a class, and most of my friends are male; most of my socializing is in mixed or almost all-male environments. (I'm fairly quiet and reserved, rarely posting to the list, not because I feel intimidated, but because I am perhaps the world's slowest writer and by the time I get around to finishing a post someone has already said what I would want to say!) As such, it's probably the case that a lot of things slip by me that shouldn't, that I've stopped noticing.
Responding to a friend's posting of Hugo Schwyzer's "Words are not fists", thoughts on why men defuse feminist anger
Do you agree with the author? I don't. I think attempting to defuse anger before it happens is desirable! How much misunderstanding is prevented by the speaker acknowledging that what he says may make someone angry, rather than risking greater offense by giving the impression that he is so clueless as to not expect that others are going to disagree? There is very little risk of physical violence arising there, but to me that seems totally beside the point and not what they're afraid of; joking about getting hit seems like it must be a cover for a real fear, being hated and treated as an object of scorn, which is damaging, maybe more damaging than being hit. But admitting being afraid of a non-physical reaction isn't very manly...
I hate women's groups. Oh, they're fine for those who like them. But I am sad that they exist. I don't want to participate in them, but as a woman, I am expected to not only be willing but be excited.
Sometimes I feel like I don't count because I don't feel this. I don't belong in a group exclusively for men. But I don't belong with the women either. When women speak about feeling excluded or put off in male-dominated spaces, I'll try to sympathize. I want to know what it is other people are feeling. But I don't; I'm not one of them. And I'm so put off by the idea that "women feel this way" that I have to consciously temper my own reaction, so as not to be too contrary--because I am upset that other people are speaking for me, and saying things I don't believe: saying, basically, that I don't count.
I am, in fact, deeply uncomfortable in single-sex spaces, much more so than I am in mixed groups. I don't feel welcomed or encouraged or liberated in women's-only spaces, I feel stifled and alien. I don't have to moderate or self-censor in mixed groups; I do in segregated ones. I only feel more alien because the space is supposed to make me feel more like I belong. My style in mixed-sex groups is less conscious of gender. I share some traits with typical men: being alternately laconic and a relentless joker, arguing for the sake of argument, being more concerned about proving my point or making the perfect joke than what others may be feeling. And some with typical women: deferring to others even when I shouldn't, desire for shared conversation rather than having to push past one person's monologue, and a desire for civility and calm. (But I'm deliberately separating this from interest or talent in male-dominated fields: many women who are far more skilled in technical and mathematical disciplines are still far more feminine.)
I don't think about having a gender, most of the time. I don't feel "othered" when a speaker talks about women or girls because they're not talking about me. My identity isn't tied up in being female. I don't think about it as being part of me more than having green eyes or big feet; I don't think, on hearing such things, that I too am part of the class of people they're objectifying. But I'm not one of the speaker's class either: I don't have those thoughts about women.
It's incredibly frustrating to be part of a single-sex group, where they're agitating for something that, in theory, benefits women, or is feminist-friendly, that I don't want. I don't want to constantly be conscious of gender, be forever reminded of it. But how can I object to joining a "female-friendly" group without being taken as woman-hostile?
So I'm not going to join the Wikichix, or the linuxchix, because it requires putting on the "chick" label, one that doesn't belong to me.