Re: [Gendergap] Defining harassment: the first empirical investigation into the nature of creepiness

[Isarra Yos]

Knowing what these traits are, even if they are uncontrollable, may also 
be useful for educating others about them. If someone is creeped out by 
something and actually knows why it's creeping them out, it may be 
possible for them to realise that, oh, it's just blah, and not actually 
a threat. And if on-wiki we notice someone who might be put off by 
another user's behaviour, reaching out to them and explaining why that 
behaviour is happening (especially if it's fairly normal, which a lot of 
the things that may seem weird to outsiders often are) could do a lot to 
put them at ease.


Possibly.

-I

On 10/05/16 17:02, JJ Marr wrote:


Other highlights:

From the list of "creepy" behavior

>Laughing at inappropriate times

>Talking too much about a topic

>Displaying too much or too little emotion

>Smiling peculiarly

>Having excessively pale skin

>Having bags under their eyes

and then

>Here’s the thing: not being creepy /isn’t that hard/.

>Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University 
study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration 
 and 
being aware of the other person’s signals.


Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social 
calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. 
If you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior 
which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely 
that they will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not 
all) of these "creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to 
contribute are uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop 
smiling peculiarly? What does that mean? And if we want to attract 
women to Wikipedia by removing creepy people, does that mean I might 
get banned due to me talking "too much" about a certain topic?


On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan" > wrote:


It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce
anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's
interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more
knowledge than most other Facebook surveys.

The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems
tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display
aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy,
making it less likely that they will contribute?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf > wrote:

A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology,
unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]

Some highlights:

*"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments?  – *No,
telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially
when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her."

*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the
potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that
because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential
threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make
people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually
wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you,
you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re
continually on edge trying to determine just what the
appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can
have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and
now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you
harm."

*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring
issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more
information about somebody than they should." Example from
Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?"
She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking
creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue
insinuating he knows where she is?"

*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and
manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is."

[1]
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org

To manage your subscription preferences, including
unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org 
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
please visit:

Re: [Gendergap] Study: men who receive harassment training “significantly less likely” to recognize harassment

[Neotarf]

>On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Risker  wrote:... In
many settings, including healthcare, higher education, and certain
industries, ALL staff are provided with anti-harassment training; it's
often treated as an extension of basic health and safety training, and is
frequently mandatory.

I would add government sector to that list, especially since WP is more and
more partnering with government agencies.


Neotarf, I'd actually question whether there's any validity to the
> *perception* that training works; in fact, there are a lot of studies that
> indicate training (particularly ritualized training that is provided
> without a specific context) is not closely associated with behavioural
> change. It's only a step above "create a policy".
>

I have seen it work over and over, routinely.  A new employee comes in, is
given a many-times-xeroxed and barely legible packet to read, and when they
finish they are given a paper to sign that they have read the
anti-harassment training materials and will abide by the policy.  The
packet contains scenarios like complimenting a woman on her dress; it's
okay to say she looks nice in the dress, it's not okay to wax poetic about
what it does for her figure. The training material also spells out what to
do and who do go to in case of harassment, i.e. do they have to say
something to the harasser first that their comments are not welcome,
etc.before they fill out a harassment form, which will undoubtedly have a
form number; also which HR functionary is responsible and what paperwork
they have to maintain in the employee file.  I'm still trying to get my
head around the "only a step above 'create a policy'" thing.  If something
is policy, it is a done deal.


> What works is regular reinforcement when behaviour lapses, and empowerment
> of people to reinforce the desired behaviour.
>

The behaviour never lapses. I suppose nobody wants that in their personnel
file.

I don't understand why the WMF has both an anti-discrimination policy and a
privacy policy that they are apparently not interested in enforcing.  But
maybe my expectation that "if something is policy, it is a done deal" is
based on the kind of accountability that comes with Title 7 and the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 that only applies to employers and employees, in spaces
that employers can control.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Defining harassment: the first empirical investigation into the nature of creepiness

[JJ Marr]

Other highlights:

>From the list of "creepy" behavior

>Laughing at inappropriate times

>Talking too much about a topic

>Displaying too much or too little emotion

>Smiling peculiarly

>Having excessively pale skin

>Having bags under their eyes

and then

>Here’s the thing: not being creepy *isn’t that hard*.

>Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University
study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration
 and
being aware of the other person’s signals.

Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social
calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. If
you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which
prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they
will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not all) of these
"creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to contribute are
uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop smiling peculiarly?
What does that mean? And if we want to attract women to Wikipedia by
removing creepy people, does that mean I might get banned due to me talking
"too much" about a certain topic?
On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:

> It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety
> in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if
> the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other
> Facebook surveys.
>
> The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous;
> are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which
> prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they
> will contribute?
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately
>> behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
>>
>> Some highlights:
>>
>> *"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments?  – *No, telling a
>> woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have
>> that level of intimacy with her."
>>
>> *"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for
>> ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is
>> keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s
>> behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually
>> wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a
>> state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine
>> just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can
>> have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve
>> made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
>>
>> *"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of
>> boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody
>> than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying
>> at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how
>> f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue
>> insinuating he knows where she is?"
>>
>> *From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not
>> to cross it obviously knows where it is."
>>
>> [1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Defining harassment: the first empirical investigation into the nature of creepiness

[Nathan]

It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety
in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if
the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other
Facebook surveys.

The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous;
are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which
prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they
will contribute?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately
> behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
>
> Some highlights:
>
> *"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments?  – *No, telling a
> woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have
> that level of intimacy with her."
>
> *"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for
> ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is
> keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s
> behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually
> wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a
> state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine
> just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can
> have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve
> made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
>
> *"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of
> boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody
> than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying
> at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how
> f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue
> insinuating he knows where she is?"
>
> *From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not
> to cross it obviously knows where it is."
>
> [1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Defining harassment: the first empirical investigation into the nature of creepiness

[Neotarf]

A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately
behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]

Some highlights:

*"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments?  – *No, telling a woman
how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that
level of intimacy with her."

*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for
ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is
keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s
behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually
wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a
state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine
just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can
have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve
made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."

*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of
boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody
than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying
at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how
f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue
insinuating he knows where she is?"

*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not
to cross it obviously knows where it is."

[1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap