It's clear that here, in 2015, sexism in video games culture is a real issue - and recent forums threads have shown that our little community isn't exempt. I've always been quick to advocate how warm and welcoming MGSA is when describing it to outsiders. And yet after reading some the of the most recent threads on this very incendiary topic I found myself feeling saddened. Sadness that the conversation had turned "ugly" enough for some members to flee the conversation. As in any relationship, when people argue "to win" it causes toxicity and resentment. And when people are feeling threatened it generally causes a defensive reaction that not only makes it harder to argue with them, but often has the unintended consequence of making them even more resolute in their beliefs.
As a pragmatist, I often ask why some men (myself included) have such a predictable knee jerk reaction to feminist theory? If the reaction is so predictable, then perhaps that might be feedback that the message isn't wrapped in the best package? People are more receptive to an idea when it is based on the values they already understand - but how can we bridge that gap?
It's a really difficult question but I think I may have found valuable insight into the answer. I was listening to a podcast about "Contact Theory" - an effort to explain what actually causes people to change their minds and shift their opinions. The podcast mainly discusses gay rights and marriage - but essentially the idea is that having real and meaningful contact with people affected by those issues causes you to change your views. It starts off with the story of a gay pastor advocating for gay rights in Mississippi, arguably the most bigoted state in America. But the real stunning revelation comes when it interviews the director of a program that interviewed over 12000 people who voted against gay marriage in California's Prop 8 bill.
Amazingly they managed to develop a script for 22 minute conversation that would change someones mind on Gay marriage and have a lasting effect on that persons opinions! My big takeaway here was the tone of the interaction:
[Skip to 47:00 for the Prop. 8 Segment]
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2015/04/26/how-minds-change-the-power-of-contact-and-disclosure-to-change-attitudes-on-divisive-social-issues/
The highlights [Skip to 1:00:00 for this bit]:
It works because the interviewer spends over half the time listening. There is no confrontation. The people don't feel like they are being talked at or patronized, which is important because it means the new idea feels like it came from within their own minds.
Apologies for posting a TED video, but it contains and actual example of one of those conversations in the field [Skip to 4:59 for the impatient]:
Highlights:
Having heroic levels of empathy for the other person will allow you meet them halfway. It probably won't feel comfortable for you, but by connecting with the person and sharing your humanity, it allows them to realise their own world view was disconnected from reality.
I'm still not exactly sure how to frame this to make it relevant to our own problems, but I be happy to have you help me figure that out.
Here are some actual examples of the scripts used:
http://www.leadership-lab.org/an-evolution-on-marriage/
As a pragmatist, I often ask why some men (myself included) have such a predictable knee jerk reaction to feminist theory? If the reaction is so predictable, then perhaps that might be feedback that the message isn't wrapped in the best package? People are more receptive to an idea when it is based on the values they already understand - but how can we bridge that gap?
It's a really difficult question but I think I may have found valuable insight into the answer. I was listening to a podcast about "Contact Theory" - an effort to explain what actually causes people to change their minds and shift their opinions. The podcast mainly discusses gay rights and marriage - but essentially the idea is that having real and meaningful contact with people affected by those issues causes you to change your views. It starts off with the story of a gay pastor advocating for gay rights in Mississippi, arguably the most bigoted state in America. But the real stunning revelation comes when it interviews the director of a program that interviewed over 12000 people who voted against gay marriage in California's Prop 8 bill.
Amazingly they managed to develop a script for 22 minute conversation that would change someones mind on Gay marriage and have a lasting effect on that persons opinions! My big takeaway here was the tone of the interaction:
[Skip to 47:00 for the Prop. 8 Segment]
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2015/04/26/how-minds-change-the-power-of-contact-and-disclosure-to-change-attitudes-on-divisive-social-issues/
The highlights [Skip to 1:00:00 for this bit]:
It works because the interviewer spends over half the time listening. There is no confrontation. The people don't feel like they are being talked at or patronized, which is important because it means the new idea feels like it came from within their own minds.
Apologies for posting a TED video, but it contains and actual example of one of those conversations in the field [Skip to 4:59 for the impatient]:
Highlights:
Having heroic levels of empathy for the other person will allow you meet them halfway. It probably won't feel comfortable for you, but by connecting with the person and sharing your humanity, it allows them to realise their own world view was disconnected from reality.
I'm still not exactly sure how to frame this to make it relevant to our own problems, but I be happy to have you help me figure that out.
Here are some actual examples of the scripts used:
http://www.leadership-lab.org/an-evolution-on-marriage/
Comments
I'm honestly not sure how an empathetic conversation is supposed to happen, or how two people are supposed to listen to each other in enough depth to be able to relate, when random other people are doing the equivalent of shouting "support" for either position from the sidelines.
There's also the problem of a text medium (and all the interpretation, cherry picking and revisiting that comes with that) vs the direct audio communication between two people.
That said, I wish it were easier and I certainly want to be part of a community that champions empathy and really deep listening in order to reach positive, sustainable outcomes and build cool things instead of a place that's full of people who consider a discussion a thing to be won. Ways to get around all of these problems exist, they're just very difficult to maintain in the face of repeated negative inputs into discussions. I think one of the most important factors in a public medium like this is establishing a culture of positivity... That's a hard thing to do though ;)
Body language, tone of voice and generally not knowing how someone is, puts things out of context.
It becomes hard to understand a specific point of view when all you have to go on is your current mood. How a person tried conveying a message becomes irrelevant. They could have said for arguments sake, "i don't agree". Your own personal mood at the time of reading this message "i don't agree" could be the difference between perceiving it as "you suck man, your opinions matters nothing, only i am right" or a "i understand but i feel its something that requires more discussion"
Which is one thing that annoys me a little around here because it seems like the most negative possible conclusion is derived if you do not spell out every single word, with its intention, and meaning and writing an entire essay to make one simple point or statement.
Or
It is sometimes a bit cumbersome to evaluate words and the various potential ways these words can be perceived when read by an individual who is not currently aware of the mood, tone of voice or body language behind the individual communicating those words. This might or might not result in a specific sentence or occasionally an entire post to be perceived as being offensive degrading or a form of bigotry or trolling.
The one statement is more offensive than the other. But they both mean the same thing. When you are a manager working with people it is best to manage the emotions of those who report to you. Meaning you cannot go and shout at them for nothing, you need to clearly explain what happened and why you might be upset about it. And what needs to be done to rectify that situation.
When employees fight among each other the emotional burden it carries is very little. Because those individuals are on the same level. So the emotional reaction is less extreme. Now if a manager or boss is to do the same with said employee the emotional burden becomes much heavier and the emotional reaction becomes stronger. This is something i learned from one of my mentors in life. And their emotional intelligence is greater than any other person i have met thus far.
Therefor i see nothing wrong with community members bickering or fighting. As long as it is kept civil of course. There are boundaries. For example... not calling names.
And my opinion on this Personally i have no issue with a feminists point of view as long as it is respectable. Or one could say if it is approached from an employee on employee perspective.
In a previous community discussion i had respect for one human female... only one though. The one approached the situation with the employee to employee discussion. Trying to convey a point of understanding.
The other tried approaching it with a I am your BOSS! And you WILL do what i say, only i am right! type of mentality.
Truthfully... there is not enough gaming stuff going on around here. Way too much emo stuff. Yes sure i know how this can be perceived... ignoring the serious issues... or not caring... or or or.
Perceive it how you want... i'm tired now. Preferably perceive it jokingly or whatever way you need to perceive it to not perceive it in a negative perspective.
All discussions on the impact of tone are not 'tone arguments'. The truth value of a particular argument is not affected by the tone it's delivered in, that's true, and it is a fallacy to suggest that it is.
But a discussion of the impact tone plays in audience response is not.
Please explain how?
I fully agree with Cross's points about people attacking the message while saying they're upset about the tone, this is what I cautioned @Crocopede against doing. What should my reply have been instead to get across that he shouldn't dismiss a full 50% of the experience of marginalisation in the thread he was talking about? (I'm still not sure which particular 50% it was either) If @Crocopede's dismissal is indeed worthy, then who was being too angry? Please point out the vitriol and harm that he's rightfully reacting to, we don't want that here!
Also, could you please explain your goal of pointing this out, to me, now? I will gladly stop cautioning people against making tone arguments if you can provide me with an alternate way to point out why they shouldn't demand women sound a particular way when talking about incredibly frustrating topics to people who seem to be looking for any excuse to ignore them.
And finally, what do you think the impact of your disagreement is on the point I was trying to make to @Crocopede? How does your reply move this discussion forward?
Why do I or anyone here for that matter have to always explain every single point made to you personally? I wanted to find a diplomatic way of establishing some grounds with this community and not having had to resort to this. I wanted to be a part of this community but alas i give up.
Even though some will agree with you on this matter it does not matter much. Because there are some who most likely feels exactly like i do but in the name of peace they dare not speak it.
Your posts in general strike me as condescending towards the other members. And it irks me. To my core.
Anyhow... its been fun. Cheers everyone. This guy...
E.g. The polarization of GG vs SJW (fullsize: http://f.cl.ly/items/1t1e3m2v0e3r1G2e0O2J/gamergate-universe.png )
@dislekcia and @crocopede : I find it curious you both make similar mentions that I understand as saying: "You find it frustrating communicating online, because it's really difficult to get other people to understand your point exactly." Even in real life, without the ambiguity of text, I've experienced the same frustration in many conflict situations. What I eventually learned is that communicating with empathy is a slippery fish, and usually that frustration was a hint I was doing more telling instead of listening as much as I should have been.
@Crocopede then goes on to give an examples how he lost respect for one forum members words because he'd felt like he was being patronized and being talked down to from on high. I get that, I don't particularly want to listen to someone who doesn't validate my opinions as being legitimate. Of course to you @crocopede I'd urge you that we can do better. Just because we aren't being treated the way we would like to be doesn't mean we can't rise above and give them the same empathy we expect in return. For instance it might not be a leap to image that forum member you lost respect for was communicating defensively because felt like the tide was turned against her on topic she cares very deeply about. As you say it's impossible to know that when someone posts, but is it too much to offer them the kindness of that assumption?
@dislekcia you wonder about the validity of debate on the tone argument. Of course as someone who is well versed on feminist theory this is something you can almost take for granted at this point. My theory is less good, but essentially I understand to mean you shouldn't discredit a message because you didn't like the way it was delivered. And that's what we saw evidenced with @crocopede. Now in a perfect world we'd expect better from him, and correcting him on the error of his ways would be enough. But instead notice how he only expressed his resentment? Have we actually improved the situation - or is it now even more antagonistic? Now allow me for a second to go back to the original post: Yes, that now places the burden upon us (and women and other supporters of the cause) to be the masterful communicators. It's not fair, but that's okay because we're badass 9th level dan wizard ninjas of communication, and we have enough sneaks to make up for the foibles of smaller minds. And in this case if we can sneakily incept the idea into their minds by getting them to "come up with it themselves" then that's a win isn't it? Even if it's a tiny nudge in the right direction that still leaves them a long way south of the mark we've moved towards improving the situation.
As for how you could have disarmed @crocopede's defensive for a more receptive outcome, an easy win would be to simply validate you've heard his point of view. Usually the easiest way to do that is to ask it back at him as a question. "What I hear you saying is that you don't like the way you were being communicated at? Unfortunately with difficult social issues we sometimes need to accept discomfort to make progress". A really difficult concept I had to learn the hard way is that even if you completely disagree with what someone's saying, it's still possible to validate that you've heard what they are saying.
However, I've still got to say that I'm not entirely convinced that meaningful discussion is possible while there's a huge potential for random posters to chime in and derail well-meaning replies with purely negative sniping. Until the community as a whole starts saying "Hey, that wasn't cool, stop it", you're going to keep getting posts that don't add anything constructive to a discussion being made for the sake of winning arguments... Case in point: @garethf's one line response to an honest question. Sure, I'm trying to engage the guy more, but what hope is there that he's going to bother to actually ADD anything when he can just quote a single question and reply with snark? Like, what's the actual point there? And it's confused you too... I was wondering why @garethf sought to undermine my pointing out how something sounded like a tone argument. You understood my original point and you understand why tone arguments aren't a good idea, that's awesome. @garethf basically said "Stop saying that" without explaining WHY or what should be said instead. It's not debate, there's no new information being offered, it's a slightly better worded "shut up"... Is it surprising that I feel silenced by that? How do we even measure the impact that had on @Crocopede and I's discussion? I completely understand what you're saying here. I've even been mass piled on in precursors to this forum (or maybe it's still here, I dunno) for saying exactly the same thing... The argument goes: "Who are you to decide that someone else's way of thinking needs changing?!" and then gets more indignant from there, stopping along the way to accuse you of everything from being condescending to arrogance and finally thought policing.
Not that I agree with that argument, nor do I believe that it's all about twisting people's minds into states they don't want them to be in... But I do understand the value of trying to echo back what you've understood someone else to be saying. And yes, it does work. When you're not being derailed by people performing for others. Yup. I hear you. Unfortunately we can see his response to my asking questions above... (And how I tried to explain why I'm asking) Guess I've simply blown it this time. Again.
Showing understanding only works when everyone is on board. I wish this community were more interested in the approach you have outlined.
@Dislekcia also mentions the importance of creating a culture of positivity here. I agree wholeheartedly! Here, to my mind, isn't just an online forum anymore. It's gone beyond that now. It's the public face of game development in South Africa. That's something I care about deeply and I want to see that grow and why I'm here now trying to foster that culture of positivity, because a healthy game industry helps me thrive making the games I want to make.
There's one more thing I've learnt about communicating with empathy that I'd like to share. It doesn't work without boundaries. Boundaries give you the strength to be kind and gentle to someone. Without boundaries you don't know where the limits lie and thus it becomes impossible to communicate without fear and anger when your boundaries are being violated.
So a good first step in that direction might be a code of conduct or safe space policy that allows us to react decisively in future situations. Let's consider the impact of the recent thread. There was some merit to it in that the framework of a safe space policy started to take shape, but it came at heavy cost of brewing stiff resentment and dividing what I know to be a wonderfully collaborative and supportive community. Regardless of the reason, the fact that we may have permanently lost one of our female forum members is a tragic outcome.
So I might ask if it's a good idea to allow these kind of debates to continue in the future, once they've reach the point of side taking? I know the idea is that we're all rational actors and that a good debate is how we advance our understanding of issue. But we're also humans, and in this case real emotional damage was done. Perhaps that is a good sign that here is where we should set a boundary? A locked thread would be a simple way to indicate that communication what not what we strive for here.
The leaders of MGSA community have the power to set the tone of how we as a community should be communicating and interacting. I'm personally happy to accept some growing pains on how we exercise that power - because there is so much more to lose if we don't.
We need a front page if we're not comfortable with this being the public face.
/offtopic
I thought it better to just let it pass. Don't want to be the asshole who derails an important thread.
I still feel that way.
Though, frankly, it's taking truly herculean levels of willpower to remain calm in the face of provocation.
Also @dislekcia , well done for acknowledging that. But when I read the rest of your reply, if imagine myself as the recipient of that I would feel like my actions were been very directly criticized. If I’m already in an emotionally heightened state that might feel like a personal criticism of myself and I’d certainly want to fire back at that point – even though that is the opposite of what you’ve just told me not to do - for exactly the reason you told me not to do it.
In this situation, if I did fire back, it would be very easy for you to say “but he didn’t listen” without acknowledging how your own inputs may have affected my emotional state. It doesn’t mean you are wrong, but the end result doesn’t resolve the situation.
I’ll be at Afrikaburn the next few days, which frankly feels a bit irresponsible of me because I won't be here to shepherd this conversation. In that case I would like to ask both of you, @garethf and @dislekcia, to kindly let the particulars of the disagreement above lie – at least in this thread. I hope we can keep the spirit going for what is I believe is proving to be a productive discussion.
Indeed, well done for trying. I'm afraid that trying alone doesn't mitigate the outcomes (which is exactly what you're pointing out to me here, I know - it just sucks that you seem to only be applying it to one person and not everyone involved).
"But they provoked me!" is not a valid excuse for anything. Accepting that argument is not a productive way to grow a healthy community and is one step away from victim blaming.
If I could make one request that I think would help with that, going forward?
Can we all try not to question the motives of folk engaging in this discussion? Whatever the intent may be of questioning someone's motives, it comes across as an ad hominem(to the man) attack, arguing someone's motivation for making a point, rather than the point itself.
Let's apply something like philosophy's Principle of Charity and assume posts are made with the genuine intention of contributing meaningfully to an important discussion.
But I’d like to let you in on a secret of my replies above: yes, we all share the responsibility to do better in the way we communicate. And something I learnt from the video in my first post that is not everybody is at the same level of awareness, sometimes we need to meet someone where they are at. So yes you are correct, I’m treating you differently from @crocopede and @garethf
Why? Because quite simply you are tireless force for good, a linchpin of this community that has more energy for seeing game development succeed than I could ever imagine. So in that case I hold you to the highest standard, because I know that if you can become more effective in your ability to make people understand the issues we face it will do more good than I could ever achieve by myself. I also consider you a leader of this community, and know that you are in the best position to lead by example and set the tone for the others that follow.
Similarly if you're on the receiving end of blunt criticism, on sexism or any other difficult topics, understand that it's very likely because that person has covered the same ground so many times before that they have simply run out of the energy and patience to give you all the attention it deserves this time round. If we can still treat them with empathy in such situations, and strive to understand the meat of what they are saying without letting the format in which it was said get to us, then we are all in a better place.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2015/05/canvassers-study-in-episode-555-has-been-retracted
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2015/05/more-strange-details-about-that-apparently-fabricated-study
Seems pretty much everyone was fooled :/ In the face of new information I have to concede that there is no proof that the methods addressed in the study were effective (or not effective for that matter). Regardless I'm still a fan of empathy and gentleness if it means people don't get to the point where they feel like they need to quit the forum. (Note gentleness isn't incompatible with criticism. You need that to grow as well, but it doesn't have to be mean).
All in all though I'm happy to see issues being addressed, and believe that forum moderation and the drafting of the forum rules are important steps that will help us get there ;)
Yeah, look, if you could lastingly change people's minds in a single conversation, that would have been quite the thing.
But the fact that it was a hoax doesn't mean that kind of technique isn't the most effective, in the long term. I've changed peoples minds, I've had my own mind changed. It does happen. It's just slow and hard, and it takes a lot of patience, especially on emotionally charged issues that challenge the core of peoples identities.
But I've never once seen browbeating a person into changing their mind work, personally.
I always refer to Aesop's fable of the North Wind and the Sun in these kinds of conversations, but people give me funny looks when I mention it. I thought it was a fairly common nursery tale, apparently not so.
Agree about being a fan of empathy and gentleness in any case.
And, again, I'm going to say that the problem on this forum is that everyone is so "nice". Our social norm here is to be "nice" to the point where we are happy to have some arbitrary guy with an incredibly sexist character on our forums as long as he'll talk about it (ie: say he disagrees) and makes games. The social norm here is not to intervene and say, hey, we don't like this kind of crap on our forums. And everytime you guys are "nice" to the poor cis white guy who's been "targeted" by people bored to death of sexist crap all over the gaming industry, you're reinforcing that social norm.
To check, I went back to Pierre's post and counted all the posts made by male forum members negatively critiquing the sexualized avatar.
(For the purposes of this exercise I only counted posts directed AT Pierre, not posts by other members talking amoungst themselves ABOUT Pierre, although those were also mostly negative. I only counted male posters, and I only counted up to the point where he changed the avatar to the one he called Normi, since that was after the thread about banning him)
Posts by males containing critique of the sexualized avatar character/criticism of Pierre's defense of it: 15 (75%)
Posts by males containing no critique of the sexualized avatar character: 5 (25%)
(Some of the men in category 2 had already posted a category 1 post)
Pierre's sexualised design was called out by the men here, repeatedly and clearly.
Let's be honest, the problem you have isn't that he wasn't called out. It's that he wasn't banned. Anything less than that, you're going to define as being "too nice".
I never once asked for him to be banned. I did suggest that punishment was necessary.
I am still surprised that you - and so many on this forum - continue to defend the rights of the perpetrator in this case.
Have you noticed how few women post on this forum? And, I mean, of the women who are active in the community in other ways, this is a tiny tiny amount.
I tried not to say it cruelly, but that is the plain truth as far as I can see it. If you would prefer, I'll remove it.
But of course, everyone got all upset about the possibility that someone might get banned.
I also feel like this discussion is starting to veer a bit off topic... but seeing as my name is being injected, i would state that my view didn't change due to threats of "punishment". Rather, because my view was that i did nothing wrong, the threat of "punishment" made me feel like a victim and strengthened my resolve. The change/removal on the thread was my suggestion in the interest of peace, but the threatening and shaming tactics did not change my view other than to reinforce it.
Also, I lol at your "wrongfulness" claim.
but the individuals who empathized with me were appreciated and sometimes responded to in private messages.
It was out of respect for them that i decided to refresh my research on the matter. The non aggressors prompted more consideration from me than the aggressors did.
Aggressors vs. Non aggressors.
Naturally a discussion lends itself to the trading of differing viewpoints. The aggressors demanded that their viewpoint be adopted or otherwise I should be punished and branded as a bigot. Non aggressors respected my agency to have my own point of view.
Like most people, when somebody claimed that i was doing something wrong, that i felt was legal, rightful, and in my own view acceptable.... i naturally felt defensive. The arguments made by such aggressors were therefore less considered and responded to defensively.
My conclusion is that non aggression was more successful in effecting my view.
Just reiterating that I'm relating my own experience as a submission of a case sample in the topic.
Also...just to be clear, i want people to know that i do not condone or support sexism or bigotry.
@garethf: You're familiar with the term "mansplaining"? Stop doing it. You're telling @dammit what she meant when she's right here and is willing, able and TRYING to tell you exactly what she meant and why. I suggest you listen. These two things in particular are really just not okay. You're making the discussion worse with assumed ill will and implying that this makes @dammit's points wrong without actually addressing the points themselves. I'd like to point out that the studies that @dammit's referencing are the ones that haven't been retracted in this thread. If you post again, make sure you're addressing points instead of trying to dismiss a poster.
@Pierre: You did a hell of a lot wrong. The fact that you don't think that portraying sexist characters is a bad thing makes this forum hostile to many people, that's unacceptable. People like @dammit and I are trying to limit the damage that you're happy to do. That's one of the reasons that the rules are taking so long. They have to be so unambiguous in making that sexism unacceptable that even you are forced to stop defending it. You are not being made a victim by people telling you that your art or behavior is sexist. Claiming that you are is both pathetic and disgusting because it diminishes the actual harm done to people by institutionalised sexism. Stop doing this. Your view is irrelevant. You removed your sexist art only after being given no other option by a forum admin: Your choices were to remove the art yourself and try to save face or have it removed for you. That's really all that matters.
...
I am officially warning people in this thread. If you attack someone else, you'll get 1 chance to edit the attack out of what you're trying to say. If you double down on treating someone else as a target, you'll get banned. If you feel I'm attacking you with this post, complain to me in PM, anything else will be deleted.
The assumption part is important. It is not mansplaining to explain something when genuine mistakes are made or ignorance expressed by a woman, nor is it mansplaining to point out how certain statements made by a woman come across or your opinion of them.
Mansplaining example :
Man: "That's Spider-man, right..."
Woman: "Yes, I know, I..."
Man, "...he was bitten by a radioactive spider and raised by his uncle Ben and he fights crime because..."
Not mansplaining example :
Woman: "Spider-man, he turns into a spider, right?"
Man: "No, he was bitten by a radioactive spider which gives him the proportional abilities of a spider. He doesn't actually turn into a spider."
Also not mansplaining example:
Woman: "I was home sick all day."
Man: "But you tweeted from the beach about how much you were enjoying it this afternoon. That contradicts what you're telling me here....Let's be honest, you just wanted a day off so you called in sick, right?"
Woman: "No, I...ah..."
I was not mainsplaining to @dammit. I am pointing out what she has said in the past and how those statements contradict what she is saying now.
It is important to use these terms in the correct context or they lose all explanatory power.
You're mansplaining @dammit's own posts back to her when she's telling you exactly what she meant by them in the first place. @dammit hasn't contradicted what she wrote previously, she's clarified very well. Yes, discussing the effectiveness of punishment for socially unacceptable behavior is not calling for people to be banned. You're not being clever and finding factual contradictions, you're treating @dammit like she doesn't know what she means. You're assuming that @dammit is ignorant of the meaning of her own words and explaining those words back to her under the assumption that anything else she posts to clarify her meaning is also ignorant of the original meaning. C'mon dude. No.
You were mansplaining. Now you're defending mansplaining. Stop that. Maybe, instead of insisting that you're not doing something, listen to how you might be doing it and try to address why people think that instead?
Correcting outlying opinions is a form of homogenisation that results in lowering diversity of discussion and makes outsiders less willing to enter into that community.
Limiting harm done to community members, while laudable, if done at the expense of stifling other member's voices seems to be a zero sum gain. Creating an outgroup of existing members by othering them is a surefire way to fragment the community.
Any rules on conduct create an exclusion zone of behaviour, which must be extremely carefully constructed. If the zone is made too large, it has the chance to denature community interactions to the point where the core of the community is disrupted enough that an implosion is unavoidable.
Please be very careful that the new modes of interaction mandated are proven to have the desired effect, and are not purely ideological constructs that have no basis in real, observed results.
You used a word incorrectly, I'm attempting to help you understand what it means so that you don't make the mistake again in the future.
I think correct understanding of important terms helps ensure clear and effective communication in the future, particularly in this thread.
Your original post was not acceptable. It remains not acceptable. Is shifting the discussion to be about the definition of mansplaining addressing that point? Does your response normalise your unacceptable post or does it address the problem and attempt to make it better?
You have also neatly ignored the rest of the post you quoted. Use that for context when answering: Does the benefit of having shared definitions (which we don't disagree on, only their application) outweigh the negative impact of someone defending behavior they've been told to stop doing?
I offered to delete them. I will delete them, if you wish?
1. Do you think the ongoing harm done by societal sexism is comparable to the slight ego discomfort of a few men being told to listen more?
2. Is the community more fragmented by sexism or by othering sexist views? Note that the MGSA has a responsibility (as do all South Africans) to tackle sexism and other forms of marginalisation.
3. You mention real, observed results. I refer you to the studies mentioned by @dammit, we have someone way more knowledgeable about this available in the local scene and for some reason, their factual input is continuously a thing that we're told to ignore. Why do you think that is?
4. How is the current advocated acceptance of sexist content not an echo chamber of its own?
And to go back a little further, I have shared the link to some studies on how to change the group norms. And how group norms that create a certain environment can be harmful etc. Can we return to that discussion on how to improve our forum/community?