Geek Feminism Wiki

Hi, welcome to Geek Feminism Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the List of women in Open Source page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Skud (Talk) 21:42, 25 August 2009

Female characters

Re: your TODO list, take a look at Strong female characters and surrounding pages :) --Skud 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for just jumping in the way I did...

...but that page was off-topic, irrelevant, and kind of...yeah. Wasn't sure what else to do about it.

Deist Zealot 06:17, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Geek Feminism Wiki admin rights

You have administrator rights on Geek Feminism Wiki.

You might find the following links useful:

Also keep an eye on:

If things get out of hand and you can't reach other admins, the next points of contact are:

Re: Flashbelt slideshow:

I'd like to leave something on the page suggesting the possible separation of sexism vs Mysogeny -- and the suggestion that his presentation was clearly sexist but not misogynistic. I think that the attempt to link the two is a source of a lot of the disagreement on the page. It is almost impossible to argue that his paresentation was not sexist, but people who attempt to defend it against charges of mysogeny end up having to argue against it being (mysoginist and sexist) I.e. not sexist means the construct fails -- but it looks to some like the argument is that it was neither (mysoginist nor sexist). This ambiguity, I believe, may lead to possible misunderstandings, arguments and unnecessary hard feelings.

I certainly don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I would like to come up with somethng acceptable -- perhaps a pointer to another page (even the talk page) on the primary page.

Darkonc (talk) 02:58, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

I may follow your suggestion later, but I'll just point out that, other than Hoss' bald assertion that he is "neither sexist nor a misogynist" all of the arguments against section argues against mysogeny but seems to concede the sexist argument -- In fact, My quick solution would be to simply move all of those arguments into a new 'Mysogynist but not sexist' section and leave Hoss all alone in the 'against' section.


Darkonc (talk) 00:50, August 26, 2012 (UTC).

MRA should redirect to feminism 101.

The vandalism and trolling and attempts to spread general sexist nonsense is exactly why antifeminist misogynists like men's rights "advocates" should have their pages redirected to something actually useful and informative. Can there not be one feminist spot online that doesn't involve giving time and attention to their silly anti-intellectual b.s.? I am respectfully considering a revert of your redirect edit. Why does this space need to bother placating MRAs? Leninflux (talk) 21:17, October 31, 2013 (UTC) 

Hello again. Thanks for your comments on my user talk page. I have decided the best approach is to focus my attention on areas of the wiki where I can be of most use, and avoid topics where my edits may (possibly!) become overly biased due my believing the entire concept ought to go DIAF. I will possibly revisit editing the page in question at a later date, but for now it is off my watch list. Thanks. :) Leninflux (talk) 22:17, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

Possible administrative issue

I think you should probably look at User:Monadic's actions considering he has been permanently banning a lot of IP addresses for unstated or extremely minor reasons without discussion or a method of appeal. While not explicitly against any rules, it could be harmful to the wiki in the long run and at least warrants a discussion. I posted my opinions on the matter on his talk page and also on an unlisted Pastebin. Due to the privacy concerns of my job, this account is anonymized through Tor and I won't be posting here again. - 20:54, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

Receipt of your concern (trolling) is hereby acknowledged. RickScott 22:29, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Hello Rick,

You changed my entry on evolutionary psychology returning it to the original text, stating "article has issues, but this is not an improvement"

I would like to understand your reasoning.  The original post is an opinion piece telling feminists what their opinions should be about Evo-psych.  My post was a factual account of the core ideas and issues.  Granted it was brief and sketchy, but it was based on facts (if you like I'll add citations)

"Evolutionary psychology is pseudo-science" is an opinion that shows an unsophisticated understanding of the discipline, and what does and does not count as science.

So how was my post not better? 16:30, November 16, 2013 (UTC)Paul Susac

Hi Paul,
A rewrite that makes the article read as though ev-psych is a robustly supported scientific discipline which feminists irrationally oppose for political reasons, and that elides description of how it's spuriously used to support essentialist arguments for gendered discrimination -- probably the most common form in which women will encounter it online -- will never fly here. Our editorial guidelines are still being firmed up, but you might find them illuminating nonetheless. RickScott (talk) 17:01, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rick,

I think that ev-psych IS a robustly supported scientific discipline which “feminists irrationally oppose for political reasons.”  In fact I think that the original post is an excellent EXAMPLE of a feminist irrationally opposing ev-psych for political reasons!

But OK, I don’t get to make the rules, you do.  So I’m going to get around to another re-write that I’ll see if I can get past you.

Stay tuned (I’ve added it to my “to do list”)

I'll politely decline, thank you. RickScott (talk) 19:21, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

hi hi!

Thanks for protecting the male programmer privilege checklist. And good to see you here! 



Azurelunatic (talk) 08:23, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Deletion request for Ad feminam

Can you comment on Talk:Ad feminam? It's an IP user who left an unsigned comment, so I'm not inclined to take it too seriously :) Thayvian (talk) 01:49, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

"some sort of misunderstanding" 

Hi, I am new to the site and this is my first time trying to contribute to a feminist site. I don't know if there is some sort of misunderstanding but I have been blocked by Leeflower from saying anything and it makes me feel very unwelcome. I have written twice on talk pages regarding making a suggestion to the article in a very polite and sincere way. I was in no way trying to start an argument not did I attempt to vandalize the page in any way. I was immediately accused of using a regressive walrus argument, something I've never heard of and then accused of being a "antifeminist rancho" on the reasons for blocking. Leeflower blocked me from communicating at all or even appealing my case and so I used a different ip address to apologize and explain myself on the talk page. I sincerely asked if my block could be removed and stated that I had not been given a warning, nor had I breached any of the general guidelines for banning. I asked if I could discuss the ban because I felt it was unfair and stated what my sincere intentions were. My second post was deleted and my ip was banned again without a word. I don't understand what would make Leeflower want to treat me like this but this isn't a good first experience for me. I don't think allies should be turned away or treated with disrespect when feminists need as many people supporting them as possible. I did nothing wrong to make my actions seem suspicious. I am worried about the kind of message it sends when people who want to help and contribute are turned away in such a rude manner. Feminist achieve their goals by changing peoples minds and bringing in support, not isolating people who were once enthusiastic about contributing. This was all because I stated that I thought derailing for dummies was not a good source for feminists because it doesn't not encourage discussion and does not have an academic basis. It encourages anecdotal evidence and anger at derailment by someone who is put in a delicate and defensive position rather than promote meaningful discussions which is what will convince people to change. I feel like rogerian arguments are the best way to change opinions about a subject. By empathizing with someone and showing that you understand them you will reduce the chance of them becoming defensive to the point of completely ignoring you. I fear anger about derailment, calling out someone or using personal experience makes people uncomfortable to the point that no progress will be made. I understand many people want to share their experiences but I don't think its a good idea id we really want to change minds. I stated that the feminist frequency page should acknowledge some problems with Anita regarding using uncredited sources and some reasonable proof that her analysis are not perfect. I am not justifying harassment or unfair treatment at all. I even wrote in my post that her harassment was horrible and that she didn't deserve it. I was concerned that leaving out information about her would lead to fruitless discussions since it is true she has made some careless factual errors. When people discuss her we should have knowledge of the many viewpoints of her besides harassment. My point was that no one is perfect and we shouldn't protect someone when they make perceived or real mistakes. MLK actually plagiarized pHD his diserstion and I think people should be able to know that. Does it discredit all of his work towards civil rights and his message? I don't believe so. Does it show that even the best of us make mistakes? I think it does. I don't think we should pretend it never happened. Anita has still done a great job raising awareness but I think people should base their opinions of her as a feminist critic. We owe it to her and all women to evaluate her based on her content rather than the way she was harassed. I think part of being treated equally and fairly is being able to disagree with someone for reasons that are fair. I also don't think I should be turned away just because I have two opinions others don't agree with regarding how discussions are conducted and the quality and content of Anita's criticisms. Thanks. 16:52, May 29, 2015 (UTC)dee