Meta:Brainstorm

You think something needs a page on this wiki, but it doesn't have one yet? Stick up a few words or a sentence on this page! See also Meta:Linkspam Linking for other ideas for pages to create/update.

If you've got thoughts to add for a page, stick them in sub-bullets. If something grows too many sub bullets, create the page, paste it all in, and mark it as a stub.

Please feel free to take things from this list and actually make the page. Add it to "Pages created" and move the suggestion.

Suggestions

• "his mental illness/divorce/loneliness/manpain made him do it" Thayvian (talk) 19:44, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • note: not to mock mental illness. or loneliness for that matter! that being said, reasons are not the same as excuses.
• "if we exclude abusers, they will never learn better" Thayvian (talk) 19:44, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • http://amptoons.com/blog/2011/12/28/on-change-and-accountability-a-response-to-clarisse-thorn/
  • Is this Ostracism is evil? --Pecc (talk) 12:27, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
• something about the difficulty of being expected to be an on-tap feminist/feminist educator at all times. and it's not just tiring, it can be threatening. Thayvian (talk) 19:58, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggesting Perfect Feminist --Pecc (talk) 12:27, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

• A page about alcohol and geekdom. There's stuff at Women-friendly events already but there's been a lot of writing lately and maybe it should therefore get its own page. Thayvian (talk) 23:59, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • http://old.ryanfunduk.com/culture-of-exclusion/ and I'm sure there's more? Thayvian (talk) 23:59, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
• The "You're not bringing this up through the right channels" silencing/derailing tactic. Either related to the tone argument, or a variant of it, I think. (example) RickScott (talk) 16:02, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
• Erasure. RickScott (talk) 02:14, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
• The erroneous phrasing of feminism as a power struggle of women vs. men, often held both by anti-feminists as a strawman argument and as genuine reality by uninformed outsiders, inexperienced beginners, and extremists. Usually crops up with three assumptions:
  • All/only men are oppressors: assumes the problem is with men instead of patriarchy and silences men, whether by assumption of inherent bad faith because of gender or as an attempt by anti-feminists to shame them from speaking (usually with labels such as "mangina", "pussy whipped", or the assumption that they're "just trying to get laid").
  • All/only women are feminists: ignores internalised sexism, gives undue credence to women purely for being women, and is used to disguise anti-feminist rhetoric just because the speaker is female.
  • Feminism doesn't care about men (or any other social group): ignores intersectionality, assumes equality is not a goal. Linked with the more extreme women want to oppress men, which conflates feminism with supremacy and oppression. - 166.70.207.2 21:33, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
• Semantic argument. While there are times when it's valid to discuss terminology, it mostly comes up as a derailment tactic and often delves into equivocation and the tone argument. Within most feminist writing, the definition of "sexism" is more specific than its general usage and this often turns into the semantic argument. While not feminism related, the biggest semantic argument on the internet is over the statement "piracy is theft". - 66.18.12.197 17:22, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum ad dictionarium partially covers this --Skud (talk) 09:19, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

• Grooming and related behaviours, unfortunately including espousing feminism/ally-dom. Thayvian (talk) 22:58, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • Not only grooming potential victims, but their circles, and communities in general. Thayvian (talk) 23:03, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • http://writehanded.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/how-not-to-be-creepy-on-twitter/ although unfortunately written more from the "how to avoid being creepy" than "signs of creepiness" angle. Thayvian (talk) 23:42, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
• From a discussion elsewhere, reasons groups won't adopt anti-harassment policies (with rebuttals) Thayvian (talk) 03:11, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • our community is too awesome for harassment to occur
  • having one exposes us to liability
  • policies inhibit freedom of expression
  • policies insult members of our community by implying that they might be harassers
• From a discussion elsewhere, anti-patterns in anti-harassment policies (ie, content and style of policies that aren't effective) Thayvian (talk) 03:11, February 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • giant disclaimer embedded in CoC about how awesome your event/community is and how really you're just doing this to cement the awesomeness
  • allowing extensive public/community discussion of not only the decision to implement a CoC but every action taken as a result
  • "Our CoC is to be awesome and to not be a dick"
  • zero specification of how violations will be addressed because you don't want to "focus on punishment"
  • We have an open-door policy, so if you have a problem, just talk to anyone
  • CoC amounts to "don't do things that you know are bad anyway" (ie, no specific behaviours identified)
  • CoC says "We are committed to providing a safe environment for everyone" or the like, without enumerating the groups that you're concerned about treating equally
  • telling victims to try to fix the situation nicely themselves
  • zero acknowledgment of power imbalances
  • requiring involvement of the police and only covering things the police care about
  • refusing to cover illegal activities on the basis that anyone encountering them should involve the police instead.
  • Using weasel-words like 'some might consider this harassment' instead of taking a clear stance on what behavior is not acceptable.
• "Women-only events are sexist because they exclude men" -- there may already be pages that address this, but it would be nice to have a comprehensive rebuttal to this "argument" in one place.
• "Twitter feminism", "Tumblr feminism", etc. Possibly tying into a broader theme along the lines of "when men use tech, it's Srs Bizness, but when women do, it's a trivial pastime". RickScott (talk) 06:26, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps also "Social Justice Warrior"/SJW, although my understanding is that that's a slam used within those sites (Livejournal, to start with) rather than by external observers Thayvian (talk) 07:01, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • Started a Hashtag activism page, which is one facet of this topic. RickScott (talk) 15:30, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
• The F word, Found the feminazi, Blame dodging. --Pecc (talk) 09:25, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
• Super ironic sexism, Sexism is over. --Pecc (talk) 10:38, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
• Hormones are to blame, Booze is to blame, Assumed invitation, Asking for it, No one mention the boobs, Unearthing arguments of yore, You should be open-minded, Feminists can't be pleased, You think men are automatically wrong and You think disagreeing with a woman is sexism. --Pecc (talk) 06:48, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
• Margaret Cavendish, The Blazing World --Skud (talk) 09:19, February 11, 2015 (UTC)
• I created Code school the other day along with a couple of examples like Ada Developers Academy and Ascend Project; it would be good if someone could add Hacker School and Hackbright

Pages created

• Meta:Editorial guidelines
• Innocent until proven guilty
• Shaming is bad
• "Just make your own computer game/film/comic if you don't like that one!" (suggestion from another person) Thayvian (talk) 19:44, October 22, 2013 (UTC):
  • Make your own
• "the good he does outweighs his abuse" (or do we have this one?) Thayvian (talk) 19:45, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's focus on the worthwhile parts
• something about the difference between up and down (eg, comedy/parody aimed up and aimed down the power axis): Punching up
• Defamation lawsuits (libel, slander) or threats thereof as a silencing tactic: SLAPP
• A page enumerating some of the double binds that members of marginalized groups face. RickScott 21:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)