They look like they're some sort of odd art project on the commoditisation
of female sexuality in the technology industry (for instance, "booth babes"
and magazine ads with half naked women promoting new gadgets), rather than
an outright attempt to titillate. Are random artistic images in Commons
scope?
Of course, a lot of the creepier denizens of Commons probably can't
appreciate that distinction. The reaction that EVula got is really
disappointing.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Alison Cassidy <cooties(a)mac.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone please explain to me why Category:Nude portrayals of computer
technology<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of…
(NSFW) even
exists? How is a category like this, whatever about the image, remotely
encyclopedic or useful to the project? It is populated entirely with
sexualized images of women - almost all naked or semi-naked - with only
tangential references to computer technology.
I'm a computer engineer myself, and a paid-up member of
SWE<http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org>.
Given the drive to get more women involved in STEM fields, I see stuff like
this as being really damaging. And this is just one single example.
-- Allie
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap