The coverage reminds one also of the sexism that continues throughout
the media...
On 8/24/2011 1:31 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Arnaud,
I'm assuming you're referring to the research that expresses that
"girly stuff" like Sex in the City and make-up has poor coverage on
Wikipedia. It's true, these things don't have good coverage on
Wikipedia, and, they are often topics of interest to mainstream women.
As someone who works within the world of research (when I'm not
traveling, I'm often huddled around dusty books, handwritten letters,
and computers researching work for museum exhibitions), I also
surround myself with women who are scholars by default due to the
industry I work in. I also have no desire to write about make up,
fashion, and I think Sex in the City is stupid (I'll take Annie Hall
and David Lynch, thanks). So I understand :)
So, when I read these reviews and articles about "girly topics" not
being covered in Wikipedia like "guy topics" I often say "yeah, it's
true, but..." And I often feel like researchers are stereotyping women
by using these topics as examples. For me, it's more disturbing
knowing that the majority of editors to the menstrual cycle article
are men. It's weird, actually, to me. Funny, weird, and, well...weird.
I think the same goes for the article vagina? I don't remember.
I assure you, just because some blogs, and researchers are emphasizing
that "girly topics" are not being covered, doesn't mean that staff and
volunteers (like me) aren't concerned about Wikimedia content as whole
when it comes to women contributing. For me, it's about encouraging
people to contribute quality content about things they love, no matter
what it is. And I assume I'm not the only genetic female who often
goes "ugh" about Sex in the City and Kate Middleton's wedding dress.
(They have their place, but, it's not in my repertoire). (Sorry to any
women on this list who are fans, it's just...not my thing.)
For me, the goal is about encouraging women to contribute to Wikimedia
projects in whatever ways they wish, about whatever topic they wish.
And if it's about soap operas and lipgloss, so be it. And if it's
about punk rock and nuclear fission, even better!
-Sarah
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Arnaud HERVE <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Maybe I am too theoretical, or too closely linked with the world of
education, but it seems to me that there might be a confusion on that
list about the kind of participation to encourage.
The kind of women I know are mostly teachers, or doctors, or work in
research institutes. They are perfectly able to write about scientific
subjects, and it seems to me that kind of participation would benefit
the cause more than stating they need to see girly stuff to feel
entitled to participate. They are not teenagers.
For instance an article about the pelagic ecosystem doesn't seem to me
very gender-oriented.
And for personal preferences there are personal blogs...
Arnaud
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
