In my experience, men think in the moment, "This is alright NOW," whilst women think about how we got to THIS moment and where THIS moment might lead. This is a very unscientific way of saying that women think things through more than men, and men seem to have trouble understanding the concerns that arise from that process. I hasten to add this is purely from my personal viewpoint. But it seemed to me that in the Ross case women were saying, "Wait! This guy has done some awful things in the past and we don't think he really understood why they were awful, so we don't trust him now," whilst guys were saying, "He hasn't done anything bad recently, so that's OK then."
We struggle as women with media depictions - when I did my original OU couse, many years ago, there was a whole unit on how women were depicted as angels or devils and there was nowhere in between - expressed as men want to bed the devils and marry the angels (those weren't the words used but I have softened the language!), women who don't fit the 'norm' are somehow 'bad'.
I never noticed having bad experiences with guys in fandom, other than my complaint that when I started dating one guy all of a sudden all the party invites were addressed to him with the assumption I would be with him, whereas before I would have been given a separate invite. But retrospectively I suspect that I kind of expected to be treated in a particular way then that in the 2000s I would find offensive.
Not sure I am really addressing your point but rambling around it.
My own opinion from the get-go was that the chairs should have consulted, and none of this would have happened if they had (along with some puzzlement as to how Neil Gaimon came into it, although he has today posted to explain that - and in the process reinforced the 'chairs should have consulted' point). I felt Mr Ross was a bad choice, a 'stunt choice' if you like, and I think some of that is because I prefer my fandom slightly amateur, a place where everybody can get involved and belong, not a place where we go to sit and be talked to.
no subject
We struggle as women with media depictions - when I did my original OU couse, many years ago, there was a whole unit on how women were depicted as angels or devils and there was nowhere in between - expressed as men want to bed the devils and marry the angels (those weren't the words used but I have softened the language!), women who don't fit the 'norm' are somehow 'bad'.
I never noticed having bad experiences with guys in fandom, other than my complaint that when I started dating one guy all of a sudden all the party invites were addressed to him with the assumption I would be with him, whereas before I would have been given a separate invite. But retrospectively I suspect that I kind of expected to be treated in a particular way then that in the 2000s I would find offensive.
Not sure I am really addressing your point but rambling around it.
My own opinion from the get-go was that the chairs should have consulted, and none of this would have happened if they had (along with some puzzlement as to how Neil Gaimon came into it, although he has today posted to explain that - and in the process reinforced the 'chairs should have consulted' point). I felt Mr Ross was a bad choice, a 'stunt choice' if you like, and I think some of that is because I prefer my fandom slightly amateur, a place where everybody can get involved and belong, not a place where we go to sit and be talked to.
I will stop rambling now!