Irony?? As the meme says, "You keep using that word and I don't think you
know what it means." -
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/17230566.jpg
I think the word hostile is more suitable. There's a difference between
constructive criticism of an idea, and calling it 'idiotic' and 'stupid.'
While I think you make a good point, it's completely eclipsed by the words
you chose.
So, on to my constructive criticism. Haven't had the time to read the
digest lately, so my apologies if I'm out of the loop. But the name "Wiki
Loves Women" makes me cringe. It reminds me of all the times I've ever
heard a guy who's been called out on his sexism say "But I love women! I
have a mother! And a sister!" It says to me: trying too hard. Pandering. It
makes me want to roll my eyes and go "yeah right." Maybe this is just a
nitpick, and perhaps I am the only person who sees it that way. Just my
opinion.
On the other hand, as an amateur photographer who is always looking to get
more experience photographing people, this seems like an awesome idea in
terms of trade. I often photograph friends' events for free - they get
photos, and I get experience. Targeting women photographers could be a way
to draw more women to wiki as contributors and perhaps help to cultivate a
different environment in commons.
--
Erin O'Rourke
http://erin-orourke.com
Ok, as promised I went into a local store and did this research:
http://instagr.am/p/KK-RXOwWyt/ I have to say I genuinely expected that I
might have to admit to being wrong. I'm pleasantly surprised the say I
don't think I was!
But first, just to say, I felt like a bit of an idiot taking a photo and
then jotting down notes in the shop. Which turned into feeling like a right
prat when one of the shop assisstants asked what I was doing ;)
Anyway.
It's immediately obvious from the photo (which cuts off a portion either
side of the stand, sorry) that there are a LOT of women on these covers.
However things break down in an interesting way. The vast majority of
covers featuring a woman, clustered to the right hand side halfway up, are
female interest magazine (fashion, gossip, etc.). Targetted at women they
almost exclusively feature a photo of a woman - but they are fully clothed,
it is often a headshot and the focus is fashion/style (or a celebrity). I
don't think these are sexist.
Below them are another set of female interest mags - home and hearth. None
of these feature a woman on the cover (though some have a person as a wider
part of the image).
Opposite these are two male-targetted types of magazine. On the middle
shelf cars etc. and on the lower shelf computers. These almost entirely
feature no people at all - with the exception of one PC mag which features
a tasteful headshot of a computer generated woman (I'm willing for this to
be included in the next set of figures, if you like) and a few with men on
the covers.
Which leaves us the top shelf - a total of 10 magazines, 5 each targetted
at men and women. Of the 5 targetted at men you can see that 4 are
obviously feature an amount of nudity sexualisation (although there is no
actual bits on show). The fifth male targetted mag features a woman as
well, dressed, but with a bared shoulder and a sexualised pose.
Of the female-oriented magazines three of them feature a man with his top
off. One doesn't feature a person on the cover. And one (ironically going
back to the blog post linked last night) features a man with his top button
undone... and water spilling down his chin and onto his chest.
I make that 5:4, or 6:4 if you want to include the other image.
My conclusions?
Sex sells to men and women, somewhat equally. Tasteful pictures of women
sell to women. Cars and digital imagery sell to men.
Tom
On 2 May 2012 22:52, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> **
> On 5/2/12 2:38 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
> On 2 May 2012 22:36, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes:
>> http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
>>
>> Seriously though, it doesn't seem that controversial to say that
>> mainstream advertising heavily skews to female nudity. Next time you pass a
>> magazine stand, count the number of covers with female nudity and male
>> nudity. I'll bet you a wiki-beer it's greater than 2 to 1. Judging by the
>> last time I was in Paris, I would guess 10 to 1.
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>
> On the principle of genuine interest I will take you up on that
> challenge :) and will report back tomorrow.
>
> Tom
>
>
> I'll be very happy to be proven wrong. I'm certainly subject to perception
> bias, but perception isn't always wrong. Don't forget to take a cell-phone
> photo if you want to collect your wiki-beer :)
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
Hello, I am Maile66 on Wikipedia and its sister projects. Here, too.
Wish to set up a daily Tedderbot to search all new articles for any that
pertain to Women's History. Need help on the search terms. For details,
please view User talk:Tedder. Also, I posted on the talk page for the
Women's History project, and received no responses. User:Tedder can set up
the bot. To do this, he needs "search keywords". I have no idea what
keywords to give him, as I was not involved in the original setting up of
the project.
For those who want to know why I am doing this, you can find examples at
"WikiProject_Texas/New_articles" or "WikiProject_Hawaii/New_articles". Any
articles on those lists that have their "Talk" in red, means they have no
project banner, or anything else on the talk page.
The daily list would take the guess work out of monitoring any new articles
that fall within the project's scope. There will be some "false positives"
on that list - meaning, articles caught by the bot that don't really fit
the project. But overall it gives a good ballpark idea of how the project
is doing.
I can create the project's "New articles" page. User:Viriditas created the
one for Hawaii, and I adapted that model for the Texas project.
In order to create the New articles page, Tedder needs to set up the bot.
To do that, Tedder needs search keywords.
I think this is a really valuable tool for the project. But we need help
on the keywords.
Maile66
I looked at all the pictures I took at the museum of Fine Arts of Angers
(France), since I still have all of them on my hard drive while the ones I
took at Rennes are both on my hard drive and on Commons servers. I
actually realized, at least concerning Angers, that they were an almost
equal displaying of male and female tits (my mesure of "partial nudity"),
at least for adults. One painting even shows a "fully" clothed woman with
three almost nude
men<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Un_Mariage_antique.JPG>.
(the meta data / description part is crappy, I'll fixed it "tomorrow",
meaning in eight hours).
Thank you Wikimedia movement, I was not creepy enougth with always thinking
"Category:women facing right in red dresses" while visiting a museum, now I
will count male vs female tits :D
Caroline
On 5/2/2012 3:40 AM, Caroline Becker wrote:
>
> Working harder to have awesome pictures of artworks with naked men ?
>
> Caroline
I did the bio of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Feinstein_%28sculptor%29 as part of
a GLAM event.
Her husband does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Currin does a lot of
satirical paintings of nude and/or big bossomed women.
Hmmm, maybe approach her to do a series on nude men...
(Note: still have to get one of her pics on that article and add more
about her to his. So many articles, so little time.)
Searching nude male did find a bunch including by an artist who might be
willing to do an original homosexual cum shot picture....
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&off…
