While it's almost a given that on Wikipedia, many male editors of a certain viewpoint don't think twice about equating their anecdotal experiences as the accepted reality in these fields, it's nonetheless surprising that some women can too. This is tangentially related to the 'gender gap gap' thread, which deals with the topic of deliberate/willful ignorance in the face of evidence. I'll quote here part of one paper I recently posted about there, which, among other things, the (male) author observed:
This seems to be an apt description of the women I've seen who see no evil. Certainly a common thread that binds them all is their close collaboration with many of the male editors who most actively obstruct efforts to bring Wikipedia into the 21st Century. Associations which they would presumably not be willing to endanger - a trade off if you will between their ability to write a Featured Article and their ability to look themselves in a mirror at the end of the day.there are women who are part of the asshole consensus, who use misogynist techniques alongside men to protect a privileged status that allows them to move through Wikipedia in uninhibited ways. This is the nature of misogynist infopolitics: conformance to sexist norms or ejection from the game.
To ground this thread in reality, let's consider Gandydancer (T-C-L). In a couple of interesting posts made to Wikipedia talk:Harassment (T-H-L) in response to a proposal to introduce a sexual harassment section/policy, we see this sort of commentary:
She's obviously felt strongly about this for a while, at the top of her talk page are two banners, declaring:Speaking as a woman, a feminist, and an editor for almost 10 years, I can't recall ever seeing "Lewd comments, unwanted advances, demeaning remarks" either. Perhaps they are common at articles that I don't edit, though a great deal of my editing is for woman-related issues. I'd sure appreciate a link as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose As I say above, I've never seen examples of sexual harassment to the point that we need a special policy to address it. If I have somehow missed the sexual harassment that many editors believe is going on unaddressed and can read examples of it, I will change my mind and agree that we need a new policy written especially for sexual harassment. But until I see the evidence, IMO a new policy would only mean that Wikipedia caved in to meet the demands of a small group of very verbal editors that feel victimized. Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes."
I have no clue what incident/s motivated these banners, but I think it's safe to say that the thinking that leads someone to describe the ongoing efforts to bring Wikipedia into the 21st Century as a 'war against men by the easily offended' can only have one real source, and it's certainly not objectivity, and it sure as shit isn't feminism.This editor has joined the opposition to the targeting of editors by the politically-correct and ideology-driven so that we can keep this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the one that only those who haven't yet done something unacceptable to the easily-offended can edit. Don't let the octopus of the easily-offended bring down the entire project!
Interestingly, seeing her comments opposing the anti-harassment proposal, WMF liason and female admin User:WhatamIdoing went to her talk page to try to tell her why she might not be best placed to be a fair witness, since, among other things, as you would hope, examples of sexual harassment are not widely broadcast, and are often cleared up quickly, and are ultimately deleted in that special way that means they're not visible after the fact, unlike say, redacted personal insults. Suffice to say, she was unconvinced.
Showing some stark similarities with the gender gap denialists, there's a distinct unwillingness here to accept any evidence or facts, not even counter-factual anecdotal experiences, if it goes against their own evidently strongly held personal view that what they see is all there is. And I find it inconceivable given the people she knows and the incidents she's observed, that she has never seen, at the very least, examples of women being demeaned simply because of their sex (or by extension, their 'feminist' views). I suspect the realty is that she's seen them, but for some reason, despite claiming to be a feminist, fails to see their gender based origin. And of course, mindful of one of the other common strawman arguments prevalent in this field on Wikipedia, I'm not classifying someone who argues politely and respectfully against someone else's idea/proposal/observation as a misogynist asshole just because it might have a 'feminist' origin.WhatamIdoing, sure I am aware that there have been some incidents of severe harassment and it go es without saying that certain people are going to be targeted by those that have a grudge against them. I can't see that a new sexual harassment policy will help, but sure, if others understand these things better than I do, by all means write one.
But if it turns out that your new policy does not help to make the Wikipedia women (and men) feel safe, I hope that it at least does not create further harm. IMO, the talk in the media of Wikipedia as a hotbed of sexual harassment is the result of a few incidents blown way out of proportion to make it appear as though harassment is common here. But in my WP experience, the men here have been unusually sensitive to women's issues rather than, as one woman put it, like male dogs pissing on the fence and scaring off the women. Of course I'm not an admin, so my view is quite limited according to you. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to get too hyperbolic, but I notice that these views are unlikely to translate well as feminist opinions in the real world. We're constantly being told that conviction rates for rape are so low the rape statutes can effectively be considered ineffectual and that the mere fact of trying to enforce them often causes more harm - by her logic do we simply strike all rape statutes down? And needless to say the notion that lawmakers would choose whether to support or oppose a rape statute based simply on whether they've personally seen a rape occur, is quite nonsensical.
There's a few other female editors like this on the project. Two that come to mind instantly are J3Mrs (T-C-L) and MontanaBw (T-C-L) - but there are others.
Since one of the central planks of the gender gap denialist's theory is that you can never tell for sure whether an editor is the gender they self-declare as, based on these sorts of comments from people who claim to be female and claim to be feminists, I wonder if it isn't time for Wikipedia to distrust anyone who self-identifies as a feminist at all (and anything else -ist for that matter) as a matter of course in these sorts of debates, lest it turn out they are anything but.