(This page is locked, so I can't edit it.)
I'm concerned about the sections "Just one of the boys" and "The invisible woman". Are mentions of clothing and hairstyle relevant? What does "looking like a cis heterosexual woman" even mean? To me, these sections come across as accusing women who dress in un-feminine clothes of being un-feminist, or at least highly suspect. Since wearing "a button up blue shirt with jeans and sneakers" or "men's t-shirts and jeans" is not at all unique to un-feminist women -- and I can hold up my feminist self and some of my feminist friends as proof -- let's focus on what people say and do, and not how they look.
- I'm going to go ahead and unprotect the page. If the trolls come back, we may have to re-protect it, but for now, feel free to improve the article. Monadic 03:34, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
@Monadic, thanks -- edited.
Having reread "Just one of the boys" and "The invisible woman" after edits, I'm concerned that these sections have deeper problems. I'll try to come back and edit them before the vandals do, but for now here are some quick thoughts... These sections come at the problem of patriachal bargainers from a very cis-centric point of view ("Many female geeks will enjoy feeling normal...", "The male-identified geek..."). I think what this section defines as "male" ("'male-gaze' exploitive pornography, homophobic jokes, playing first-person shooter computer games with rape sub-plots") is something more specific -- what's the word for it? Also problematic is the way "The invisible woman" suddenly springs on us in the last paragraph that the woman we've been talking about all along has been assumed to be white, and women of color are the "other" ("One way to counter her is to bring other women's experiences and desires to the table. For example, it is well-documented that some men are more likely to assume a woman is a prostitute or sexually promiscuous if she is of certain races."). However, there are bits of these sections worth preserving ("Our entire culture presents men's desires as people's desires"; "women are inferior, men are better, and at best she is an honorary man in some situations"). Jlstrecker 14:21, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that some of the language is cisnormative, and of course, suggesting that a particular person-one-assumes-to-be-a-woman is "male-identified" and therefore unfeminist is pretty problematic in that they might actually be male-identified because they're male (and not out yet), not because of their politics. I also have trouble with critiquing people's political views based on what turns them on (though this is complicated and I don't think that turn-ons should be shielded from critique, either). You may want to leave a note on User:Vaurora's talk page, as it looks like she is the original author of the article, to see if she wants to join the discussion. Or you could just keep editing; it's up to you.
- A more general question is whether the wiki should distinguish between articles that are clearly personal essays (like this one) and articles that are intended to be more objective. Monadic 16:20, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Yes, I agree that this personal essay should be clearly marked as such, or even moved elsewhere on the internet. It doesn't speak for the community in the way that the other articles do. It's problematic in a number of ways -- cisnormative and white-normative as stated above, plus it's judgy and oversimplifying and caricaturizing. It would have to be totally rewritten to meet the standards of the community wiki. Perhaps instead some of the ideas in this article could be reformulated under Good sexism comebacks. I'll leave a note for User:Vaurora.
- @Monadic, how do you suggest distinguishing personal essays? Jlstrecker 13:54, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, someone asked me to comment on the discussion here. My goal with this page is to help people feel less personally betrayed when they discover that some geek women are not feminists and may even be actively working to undermine other geek women. Whatever way you feel is best to accomplish this goal is fine. I do think that the primary goal of this wiki is to help geek women, and that should be the first consideration. I personally don't think that the best way to spend my time is by contributing further to this article and won't be commenting again.Vaurora 04:24, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved. I got inspired and rewrote the article. Jlstrecker 00:24, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
re: "Many geeks of all genders became geeks because they were good at things that society has mistakenly gendered as "masculine"."
I thought of it the other way around, that geeky things weren't seen as macho because they tend to be sedentary intellectual pursuits instead of active physical endeavors,example "you want to read science books instead of playing sports?". Granted, some geeky things can be a sedentary intellectual manifestation of something macho; wargames come to mind. And of course there are exceptions.
The section was interesting in general; sometimes I'm inclined to think that certain 'macho' traits are positive for all genders (ignoring 'girly' traits positive for all genders and 'macho' traits negative for all genders. Royal Jester (talk) 06:41, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
"No True Scotsman"
This sounds to me like a classic example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Denying the valuability of the opinions of those who don't share the opinions of a generalised community by saying they aren't "true" members of the community. That is an informal fallacy. 188.8.131.52 22:22, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that either you are trolling or you don't understand what "No true Scotsman" means. Just as a bit of life advice, quoting lists of logical fallacies is not a replacement for critical thinking -- especially not if you show a lack of comprehension of what those fallacies even mean. Monadic (talk) 22:29, November 3, 2014 (UTC)