BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Woman-Friendly Barbelith - commentary and analysis

  
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 10

 
 
miss wonderstarr
15:54 / 07.03.06
Oh, I didn't know 2 suits was against rules. I have participated in another forum as a female-identifying persona, as a kind of experiment for myself in "passing" and a work of fictional character-building (as she is partly created through interaction with others... a process interestingly different from creating and writing a character on your own, in a work of fiction). As a teenager I often played female characters in RPGs, and as a mostly-unpublished fiction writer I've often found it an interesting challenge to write convincing female characters, particularly in the first person.

So, I feel there's room for it to be a perfectly valid creative experiment. I think you've said, Haus, that your persona here is not exactly the real-person who is behind "Haus" -- just as the real John Ford and John Wayne are (were) not their public personae or films, and I'm not really precisely like "kovacs".

It's not so much of a step, perhaps, from me playing "kovacs" as an aspect of myself here, to me playing (for instance) "Adeline Apostrophe"... does it make so much difference that kovacs is assumed to have a cock?

If I dumped kovacs, and started up Adeline, would that be... "OK"? (NB. I wouldn't really call her Adeline.)
 
 
alas
16:00 / 07.03.06
Backtracking a little, first, I feel a need to say that id entity is absolutely right:

There are people of all genders who, due to past events in their lives, have an extremely powerful, uncontrollable negative reaction to seeing that word, among other triggering factors. While I believe that people who may be triggered in this way have a certain responsibility to protect themselves from being exposed to triggers they can't handle— I wouldn't recommend that someone in this situation go to a hardcore dungeon party, for instance— I also think that people have certain reasonable expectations of what they will and won't find in everyone's favorite message board.

I regret, in F101, my decision to use the word in question a little too lightly, imprecisely, in reference to DM's behavior and questions as a way of attempting to provoke the realization that his questions were not just seemingly deliberately ignorant but also offensive. It was a stupid tactic on my part, a decision made in frustration and anger that I've had some ambivalence about, but still basically stood by, because...well a whole welter of reasons that the thread subsequently explored. If, however, that decision of mine led another poster to take the word on as part of his name, I feel partly responsible because, seriously, I should have known better, and I may have unconsciously helped to create an environment that seemed to ok this kind of casual usage.

kovacs: I think it's fine for you or anyone else to take on a female-sounding name as an experiment. Maybe I'm old school, but I'd urge you to behave as you normally do, don't overtly "lie" about your gender or seek to deliberately deceive anyone, but it's certainly ok to mask your gender for awhile and see what happens. That kind of experimentation is part of the culture of a message board, and people do it for all kinds of reasons.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:56 / 07.03.06
Hope nobody minds but I'm going to start a new thread for this and paste in the dialogue, as when I was away from the board I thought of another significant point I wanted to add.
 
 
Quantum
17:40 / 07.03.06
So, what's this thread for again? An observatory for the women-only policy thread? A place for everyone to comment on what the girls are saying? Isn't it a bit like that scene in Porkies where they drill a hole into the girl's locker room?

The men here seem a little bit unable to let that that thread happen as it should 'lula

Indeed. Why is it so hard to leave it alone? Bite your metaphorical tongues gentlemen.
 
 
Sniv
10:36 / 20.03.06
This is in response to Mordant's 'Le Sigh' over in our sister thread.

Buuuut, does over-use of a gendered swear-word constitute sexism? I get no impression that Spiney was aiming his c-bombs at any females. He wasn't even saying the whole word. Perhaps your 'Le Sigh' was angled to the worng thread?

I don't mean to be facetious here at all, btw, but I just read it, and thought "hang on", Spiney may be being a total glans-face, but I don't think he's being sexist. Unless of course, we're considering 'cunt' to be a sexist or misogynistic slur. I'd consider it to be a nasty swearword, yes, but not specifically aimed at females any more than 'cunning' (which comes from the same language root, and was originally specific to females) or 'motherfucker' could be considered sexist language today. Sure, it's a part of the female anatomy, but so what? You never hear accusations of misandry when people get called dick-heads or knobs, or the myriad of penis-based slurs. But perhaps this is my personal use or the word, and not it's general consensus usage. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this, even though I love the word (esp when used by Scots, it sounds great).

Although, his use of 'chav' indicates some class issues...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:47 / 20.03.06
(which comes from the same language root, and was originally specific to females)

To save time, John, could you just copy and paste my correction to this statement from the PM I sent you? Thanks.

Also, and this is quite important, did you read this thread before posting to it? Or, indeed, the post directly above this one? This is considered not only good form in the Policy, but minimum acceptable compliance.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:11 / 20.03.06
Buuuut, does over-use of a gendered swear-word constitute sexism? I get no impression that Spiney was aiming his c-bombs at any females.

Yes he was. I'm still female, I'm just spending a month in drag. I'm reasonably certain that Spiney knows this too.

He wasn't even saying the whole word.

Yes he was. I went in and asterisked out the c-word because although I personally have had it aimed at me so many times over the years that I've developed a fairly thick skin about it, it's still a male poster using gendered insults to attack a female poster and I don't think that kind of thing should be left unchallenged. I have a lot invested in the Temple and I want to see it thrive. I don't want female lurkers to see it as a place where they might come in for unchallenged gendered abuse. There are plenty of other fora where that happens.

I don't mean to be facetious here at all, btw, but I just read it, and thought "hang on", Spiney may be being a total glans-face, but I don't think he's being sexist.

I beg to differ.

I'd consider it to be a nasty swearword, yes, but not specifically aimed at females any more than 'cunning' (which comes from the same language root, and was originally specific to females)

I believe Haus has already cleared this up for you.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:28 / 20.03.06
Sorry if that sounded a bit peremptory. However:

a) Bad scholarship should not be used to support a position. To say "but it's just like 'cunning'!" is not only unhelpful, it is also wrong, and muddies the water unnecessarily. These are issues which people have strong and sincere opinions about, and I don't think it's unfair to expect people who want to talk about them to make a bit of an effort to determine whether their received wisdom is reliable.

b) This thread is problematic for a number of reasons, the main one being that it suggests that men on Barbelith need to have an immediate right to reply on Barbelith to anything women say, that they need a place to do this and that if one is not provided, they will either not be able to help themselves or will assert their right to flood the woman-friendly thread - that is, that the provision of a space in which women can talk without male editorialising is an act of kindness subject to severe conditions.

c) There's already a thread for discussing the use of the ladypart word - it's in the Head Shop and called "but you say {ladypart} like it's a bad thing", I believe.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:33 / 20.03.06
Here, in fact.
 
 
Sniv
12:24 / 20.03.06
Haus -

Firstly, I should not have used the 'cunning' example, I was wrong. Sorry. I only have an English A-Level, I shouldn't have tried to play with the big boys... (self-depricating joke, not aimed at anyone else here but myself).

Secondly, I have read both this thread and the girls' thread. Are you suggesting I should have posted in this one either? I only posted in the female thread to start with becasue Our Lady did. Ze's not a girl (as far as I'm aware), and I didn't think my presence would be a problem. When I was told it was, I posted it here. It seemed logical as this is the 'male response' to the thread where those of us born with a penis can't post.

I saw Q's post above and didn't necessarily agree with it. It was one poster's opinion, and it didn't seem as if a board-wide consensus had been reached wrt locking this thread, so I thought I'd post here.

This thread is problematic for a number of reasons, the main one being that it suggests that men on Barbelith need to have an immediate right to reply on Barbelith to anything women say

I'm sorry, but this logic sticks out like a sore thumb. This is a forum where anybody can reply to anything. Why is it problematic for man to want to engage with points women are making, especially when the women are talking about things that they seem to notice that the mojority of us men don't see or understand. I was trying to engage, politely, with a comment made. I was questioning it because a) I may not have understood what was meant by the original comment and b)I didn't necessarily agree with the point that Mordant was making. This doesn't mean I wanted hir to shut up, or to get over it, I was just poking around the outsides.

Mr Carnival -

me - I get no impression that Spiney was aiming his c-bombs at any females.

You - Yes he was. I'm still female, I'm just spending a month in drag. I'm reasonably certain that Spiney knows this too.

I can't see where, in the post that you linked, that Spine-boi directs anything at you, let alone that torrent of swears. From what I could see, he was just building foul-mouthed straw-men - the cunts in question were "...the kind of fucking c**ts and wankers i am talking about, the pieces of shit that have no joy in them what so ever...". I didn't feel that was directed at anyone there, and if it was, it was very diffused and non-specific in its direction.

Also, if you were editing words, why not put the post up for deletion? If you honestly felt the abuse was directed at you, or any other female on the board, that that's an issue for the banning thread, isn't it? I agree that the use of language was entirely wrong for pretty much anywhere on the board, but I still fail to see how he's attacking anyone else other than his straw-c*nts (other than through use of language that may set some people's teeth on edge).

I don't mean to come across as combative or like I'm defending anyone here, I just wanted to engage with the points being made in a normal and thoughtful way.

Also, thanks for the link to that thread. I'm definitely going to read that.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:33 / 20.03.06
I'd call that a very forgiving reading of the post myself. I believe I was being included in the category of joyless c**t, and that Spiney chose to use a gendered slur because he knew that one of his interlocuters was female. He may very well have picked that epiphet precicely because misogyny and sexism on the board and elsewhere have been under discussion lately, making gendered slurs more attractive as their percived level of offense has been heightened.

My initial response was to delete the entire post, but I felt that was too aggressive a move. I try to moderate the Temple with a fairly light touch, and amazingly enough I'm reluctant to hack out entire posts. Splatting the dodgy words seemed like a reasonable compromise.
 
 
Sniv
12:43 / 20.03.06
I'd call that a very forgiving reading of the post myself.

Yeah, well I like to think the best of people. I'm not an old cynic yet!

I believe I was being included in the category of joyless c**t, and that Spiney chose to use a gendered slur because he knew that one of his interlocuters was female. He may very well have picked that epiphet...

This assumes a lot though. It assumes he's been reading the (really heavy and difficult) Feminism threads, that he knew you were female and expressly wanted to cause offence. Of course, I'm making assumptions that he hasn't read those threads (I only read them because I'd been reamed for using a naughty word - I would've skipped them otherwise, if I'm honest); that he didn't know you were a female (I didn't until about 2 weeks agao actually); and that he was being nasty.

If anything, his post read to me like a demented romantic, screaming for his poetry and de-crying all the c*nts and awful people that get in his way. Yes, it was very 'woe is me' and stuffed to the gills with nasty words, but I don't think it was aimed at anyone, let alone you.

I am fully aware that my position here (that you may be reading too much into this) is one of the things that the female posters were scared the male posters would do. If you want to tell me to bog off, please do, and I will drop this.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:47 / 20.03.06
He does know I'm female. He may not have read the Feminism thread, but he's certainly read the Sexism in Magic thread because he posted to it.
 
 
Sniv
12:48 / 20.03.06
Fair enough.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:02 / 20.03.06
I'm fairly ignorant of this guy and/or his presence in the Temple prior to this problematic post, but the alternation between (a) excoriating c*nts and wankers for being joyless and having no poetry in their lives and (b) unambiguously direct adress to Mordant (poetry, remember that, do you? etc [I paraphrase]) made it read to me like a fairly threatening piece of abuse, directed specifically at a female-identified poster, which used misogynistic language. Whether or not he knows Mordant's gender and whether or not he's a frustrated romantic are beside the point at this stage.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:20 / 20.03.06
This poster is a very troubled person with a checkered history in the Temple. At his best he's contributed some genuinely worthwhile material, but unfortunately his problems mean that at times he tends to lash out and become seriously abusive. It's very sad, but it's also infuriating to deal with. I'm rather hoping he really will take a bit of a breather this time and sort some stuff out before he comes back. Right now he's not doing either the forum or himself any good.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:08 / 20.03.06
I'm sorry, but this logic sticks out like a sore thumb. This is a forum where anybody can reply to anything. Why is it problematic for man to want to engage with points women are making, especially when the women are talking about things that they seem to notice that the mojority of us men don't see or understand.

Clearly the logic doesn't stick out far enough. The problematic nature of this thread is discussed within this thread. If you believe that it is vitally important that there is a topic for male commentary running alongside the one thread on Barbelith in which women are able to discuss issues without being massively outnumbered by male-identified posters, lest the unsupervised ladies fall to savagery without the sage counsel of the menfolk, then we shall have to agree to disagree. This may be one of those things that you don't see or understand, and I am interested to note that, while you admit the existence of such things, you do so only in order to justify the existence of a masculine commentary on them. As the philosopher Li Po would say, dude. Why not just have a listen to them instead?
 
 
Sniv
14:15 / 20.03.06
Haus - Fair enough, I shall stop talking. Why not lock this thread, so others don't stumble into the same trap?
 
 
illmatic
15:21 / 20.03.06
Mordant, I didn't realise you felt that US was directing that at you specifically. If I'd realised that I would have jumped on him a bit myself. The PM I sent you would have read a bit different also.

Everyone else - I know the guy IRL, though I have infrequent contact with him. He has got a lot of problems but that doesn't mean he should go unchallenged. I appreciate Mordant's restraint in this instance.
 
 
rising and revolving
16:30 / 20.03.06
Mordant, I didn't realise you felt that US was directing that at you specifically. If I'd realised that I would have jumped on him a bit myself. The PM I sent you would have read a bit different also.

I, likewise, didn't realise that MC read the post as directed at her.

Given that, I think Mordant has been *supremely* restrained. I really think US has an obligation to

a) Confirm that it was not intended to be directed at MC, and apologise for the offence unintentionally caused.
b) Confirm that is *was* directed at MC and give some reason why that's even borderline acceptable. Accompanied by profuse apologies.
c) Ban.

Because if I read it in an undirected fashion it's merely reprehensible. If I read it as an intended attack on MC, it's the most offensive thing I've seen on Barbelith.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:48 / 20.03.06
Well, that's not necessarily the correct reading. I do think that it's a fair reading though.
 
 
rising and revolving
21:47 / 20.03.06
Certainly, it wasn't my first (nor the most charitable) reading. I just think it's not unreasonable when someone is offended in such a fashion to ask for an explaination.

This is sort of an extreme circumstance, given the possible uncharitable reading is so off-the-scale offensive, I think.

Others may differ, though.
 
 
Ganesh
20:10 / 01.04.06
Lula:
Ganesh, this thread really isn't for you. There is one for you to comment on this one in if you need to. Can't you post in that instead?

I've twice acknowledged in-thread that the thread's not for me, and apologised for posting in it (at the time, it seemed to make more sense than cut 'n' pasting to elsewhere, but I take the point). I've butted out now, and am going to transpose our conversation here, so you can move my offending posts for deletion if you so desire.

Lula:
I have a big issue with Kovacs under the guise of Miss Wonderstarr, specifically here in the Gives me a Happy thread, commenting on how hir 'did his nails' whilst waiting for the puppy to not die.

I freely acknowledge that Kovac's name change made me feel uncomfortable from the beginning, but I was unsure as to why. In the thread about it people suggested that they didn't have a problem with the experiment if he was open and honest about it. This hasn't happened. Posters not in the know are already referring to Kovacs as 'she' and they have not been corrected. I think somewhere someone suggested that people should not deliberately be misled, and they are being.

Quite why this matters to me I don't know, maybe 'I'm doing my nails' is all part of Kovac's experiment but personally I feel affronted. What it feels like to me is a male poster in the guise of a female making comments which he deems 'fit' the female suit because they're frippery and 'that's what females do'.

I've asked Kovacs about this in the thread already but I think I've probably made things difficult in doing so. By saying no, Kovacs will be agreeing that he is stereotyping women. It's likely he may claim this is the point of his experiment.

I absolutely admit to have been waiting like a tiger ready to pounce on the Miss Wonderstarr suit, but I really don't think it's helping the site, or female or male posters. It doesn't appears to be a useful thing for anyone other than Kovacs who appears to be getting his jollies out of it by not correcting anyone presuming him to be female, and by pretending what women mainly do is paint their nails.

Me:
I think the issue of whether or not a given poster's online identity is "helping the site" is rather a bizarre, abstruse criterion for deciding whether or not to tiger-pounce on that poster. Ditto "useful". If someone chooses to present as a particular gender, they ought to be addressed as such. I think speculation as to "jollies" is rather unnecessary, and somewhat disrespectful.

Personally speaking, I have to say I'm finding myself reacting differently to Miss Wonderstarr than I did to the previous incarnation. I'm not sure why, but I'm finding this a more pleasant person to interact with. So... for me, it is "useful", "helpful", etc. to think of her as "she".

Incidentally, where did she pretend "what women mainly do is paint their nails"? I make reference elsewhere to being unhappy with my oversized gut but I'm not 'pretending what men mainly do is express unhappiness with their oversized guts'. Has Wonderstarr's personal inexplicably become generalised, in your mind, to the political? Why?

Me:
Without wishing to take up too much space here (perhaps we need a new thread devoted to 'online gender' or somesuch?) I think that, if this thread's aiming to be "woman-friendly", that means being friendly to all women.

Mordant:
And absolutely none of the above could have possibly gone in the male response thread... why?

Me:
Ask Lula. I'd say "because Wonderstarr is not male".

Mordant:
Fine by me, but I wasn't under the impression that wonderstarr waspresenting as female, more sort of feminised. If ze's actually presenting as female then sure, that's more complex.

Me:
I don't really understand the distinctions. The 'Miss Wonderstarr' suit is, as far as I'm aware, female ("she" rather than "ze"). 'Ganesh' isn't, however, so I'll butt out now and continue in another thread.

Mordant:
First off, I have to say that I experienced pretty much the same reaction as Lula to the 'doing my nails' reference. I interpreted it as a male poster satirising what he saw as feminine behavior, and my scratchy button was well and truly pressed. Having calmed down a bit and exchanged a few PMs with the poster in question, I've been moved to re-think that response.

I have in the past seen male posters, here and elsewhere, don a female suit for the express purpose of attacking what they saw as female weaknesses and negative traits. The resulting grotesque never passes for long, being composed largely of misogynistic fantasy, but during its brief lifecycle it can do a lot of damage. I think that's what made me feel uncomfortable.

As I said to miss wonderstar: I think the important point was that I didn't grasp the femaleness of the wonderstarr suit and was kind of thinking of it as kovacs in mascara, which I now realise was an error. That's what upped the scratchiness of the nails thing for me--I was reading it as a comment by a male-identified poster in a feminised suit, which gives it a different flavour.

There were also a few things I didn't know about this poster's backstory, for instance that ze is keen on personal grooming ect., which again puts things in a rather different light.

Me:
Another of those innocent-until-proven-guilty benefit-of-the-doubt moments?

Apologies. Gone now.

Mordant:
So what, it's not okay to flag or challenge something at the scratchiness level? We have to wait for outright offence?

(Answered Mordant's point via PM so as to avoid causing upset by further invasion of women-only space.)

Lula:
Kovacs, I only only got your PM this morning and I posted here last night.

I apologise for not considering that your post was seriously about doing your nails, to me it read as a male poster who has decided to post as female making a comment that 'sounded' female.

That's how I read it but I see now that you may not have meant it as that. I was unaware of your online life choices at the time of reading or posting.

I think I do still have a problem with posters identifying as female if they are not when they are directly referred to by gender. I don't know why. It just feels like lying I think. Is that wrong?

Ganesh, this thread really isn't for you. There is one for you to comment on this one in if you need to. Can't you post in that instead?

I don't really understand the "if they are not when they are directly referred to as gender" part. Can you explain that to me a little further, Lula (in either thread)? Also, without wanting to put words in her mouth, I suspect Wonderstarr would prefer not to be addressed as "Kovacs" now...
 
 
Aertho
21:29 / 01.04.06
Ze doesn't. I've called hir Kovacs once. Unlike the trend of having a core "name" (Dunc, Papers, Haus, Lady), Miss W has said she's miss wonderstarr, and only that, for now.
 
 
*
22:16 / 01.04.06
I think I do still have a problem with posters identifying as female if they are not when they are directly referred to by gender. I don't know why. It just feels like lying I think.

I'm also wondering about this.

To me, "identifying as female" is the same as being female, albeit without the assumptions about genital configurations and hormone levels that we usually see attached to that. So if I read this sentence "identifying as female when they are not" it either makes no sense, or it rests on assumptions which I associate with cisgenderism, and at it's extreme with the belief that trans people are just out to deceive others.

I am (extremely, and you're all probably sick of hearing about it by now) out as trans on the board. But I have the perfect right not to be. Should I footnote each of my posts with "(by the way I'm trans)?" or every time someone refers to me with male pronouns, should I say "Thank you, while I do in fact prefer male pronouns, I feel obligated to tell you you're speaking of the dickless wonder?" That's stigmatizing. No doubt, however, that my situation and miss wonderstar's are different, but I'm having difficulty seeing exactly how that difference entitles me to better treatment than that she is accorded. I'd welcome further explanation.

miss wonderstar, I hope you don't mind if I describe you this way, but according to every definition I regularly use, you seem to me to be transgender. Regardless of what gender you were assigned or the role you wear in non-online life, here you've chosen to present yourself in a different gender than that you were assigned. I know that because of my experience as trans, I want certain things from people I interact with on the boards— I prefer male pronouns, I'll accept gender neutral ones, and I'll correct people using female ones for me and even get angry if they persist after I correct them. It makes me very uncomfortable to be hit on by (anyone, but especially) straight guys who are under the impression that I'm a woman, and I have reacted negatively to that on here before. If someone were to act in a way which I felt called my identity into question, I'd likely feel very upset and regard the board as less safe for me, which is maybe why I've seemed overzealous in my defense of miss wonderstar, if in fact I have— I'm projecting on her what I would feel in a similar set of circumstances.

Now, I'm privileged to be able to talk openly about my life as a trans man because I'm in a position to take the risk that this could affect my life negatively, and I've been able to minimize that risk by living in the Bay Area and working in an academic field where people generally treat "alternative" people with some measure of openness and respect. miss wonderstar, I understand you're not in that position. I hope that doesn't make it harder for you to talk freely about your identity and experience, and thus explain to people how you'd like to be treated.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
00:39 / 02.04.06
It's 3.35 am so I don't think I am in a fit state to reply at length just now -- I'd like to take this up further tomorrow. But:

I think I do still have a problem with posters identifying as female if they are not when they are directly referred to by gender. I don't know why. It just feels like lying I think. Is that wrong?


Thank you for your reply, Lula, and I understand your discomfort. You have been a woman all your life. I am a female fictionsuit born some time in March 2006. But I would like the space to grow into myself. I feel it's inappropriate for me to post on Women-Friendly Barbelith, because of the difference I can understand and acknowledge between those who were born female, and those who only exist as female on here. But I would ask that people do me the courtesy of referring to me by my name miss wonderstarr and by female pronouns. I do not feel fully connected at all to the previous persona. If I falter or false-step, please challenge and catch me. But I would like the space to develop.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:34 / 02.04.06
As for the rest (5 hours or so later) I don't feel I can really talk about transgender without undermining the integrity of my persona -- that'd be like saying look, here's the mask I'm wearing, here's why.

As I had to point out just now on the Online Gender thread, I am not some test-case construction to explore ideas of gender. Sure some thoughts about gender may come to my mind because of my interactions on here. Just as they may come to any of your minds because of the way you're treated here. But I don't think I am obliged to think through the consequences of things like my name and bear responsibility for what it represents, any more than anyone else is -- if my name doesn't explicitly offend (on the level of "Sensitive R") then it's up to my tastes what I call myself, and my tastes are no more stupid than many other people's.

However, I think you have represented the situation accurately (id)entity, as I feel it. I feel quite unhappy when I have my identity challenged and undermined here, and that does make it feel like an unsafe space for me.
 
 
Ganesh
17:13 / 02.04.06
(Incidentally, if Lula or anyone else wants me to start deleting my posts from the Woman-Friendly thread, just let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.)
 
 
Ganesh
22:01 / 12.04.06
Overheard next door in the Woman-Friendly thread, Nina:

Celane and I suppose ER9, this is a boy's club because most of the vocal members are male, the board rests entirely on individualism and individual decisions, there aren't any moderation policies, which means everything has to be discussed and argued out and all of the arguments about how to do things are primarily between men. It's actually pretty clear cut and of course it's not about new posters, that would be to ignore the ratio of male-female posters on barbelith.

While I can certainly see "boy's club" elements and I'm aware that Barbelith (in common, I suspect, with much of the rest of the Internet) has a high male:female ratio, I think I'd take a bit of convincing that this is down to there being no moderation policies. If "everything has to be discussed and argued out", then this is presumably because Tom (who is male) prefers this to instituting rigid "clear cut" policies that don't require some degree of discussion.

Given that we employ spread moderation, perhaps it's worth looking at the male:female ratio among moderators?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:09 / 12.04.06
Given that we employ spread moderation, perhaps it's worth looking at the male:female ratio among moderators?

The Trunkster has raised a very valid point here, and one which hadn't occurred to me before.
 
 
Isadore
22:31 / 12.04.06
...much of the rest of the Internet ... has a high male:female ratio...

Please recheck your statistics. This was true ten years ago or longer, but not so any more. According to GVU's 3rd WWW survey, in 1995 only ~ 15% of Internet users were female. But according to a more recent study (pdf), 68% of men in America use the Internet, vs. 66% of women.

Not a good excuse.
 
 
Ganesh
22:34 / 12.04.06
That'll be why I said "suspect" rather than "know", Celane - and a speculation rather than an "excuse".

Any constructive suggestions in terms of improving Barbelith?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:41 / 12.04.06
I'm aware that Barbelith (in common, I suspect, with much of the rest of the Internet) has a high male:female ratio, I think I'd take a bit of convincing that this is down to there being no moderation policies.

Sorry I was obviously a little unclear. I didn't mean that there are more men because there are no moderation policies. There are simply more men on the board and thus more male moderators in most of the fora. The construction of the moderation system rests on individual response to each request and there are more male moderators in most of the fora so the discussion of requests and responses will be male dominated by default. If we had policies then it wouldn't matter as much because the definition of what we were doing wouldn't necessarily have the inherent bias* that the decisions and discussions are going to have.

It's not a criticism so much as an explanation of why barbelith is unavoidably a boy's club. I don't even have a suggestion of how to tackle any of it, I'm not sure it would be barbelith if we did.

*not inherently negative or necessarily effecting just present because the moderators lean towards being male. I think I probably need to emphasise that it was a discussion on the perception of barbelith as a boy's club.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:47 / 12.04.06
I also feel like I should explain that I'd written this whole thing about individualism on barbelith and how I felt that actually part of the perception of the board as a boy's club was confused with that but I deleted it because it felt too incoherent but then shades of that leaked in and... where's my grammar gone?
 
 
Ganesh
22:59 / 12.04.06
There are simply more men on the board and thus more male moderators in most of the fora. The construction of the moderation system rests on individual response to each request and there are more male moderators in most of the fora so the discussion of requests and responses will be male dominated by default. If we had policies then it wouldn't matter as much because the definition of what we were doing wouldn't necessarily have the inherent bias that the decisions and discussions are going to have.

Rather than introducing policies which are less open to individualistic interpretation (which I'm pretty sure runs counter to Tom's idea of how Barbelith should work), I think it would be more useful to examine the male: female moderator ratios as I've suggested. The only hitch I can envisage with this is that, if we're ascribing "inherent bias" to the fact that some moderators are male (ie. because they're male, this will "unavoidably" lead, via their moderator decisions, to a "boys' club" atmosphere), the same argument might equally be made regarding the heterosexual:homosexual:bisexual split, or the US:UK:restoftheworld ratio, etc., etc. If, when selecting moderators, positive discrimination is to be employed in one direction, why not other directions too?
 
  

Page: 12(3)45678... 10

 
  
Add Your Reply