in re: video - addressing the video issue alone -

i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia
"i don't like it" = merely decorative

better to argue:
that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism;
that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding;
that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original to you)

keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is "5. worship of the written word" so it is a frequent "content dispute" masking ideology.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Marie Earley <> wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....

Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?

In particular this comment:
"...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."

I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of
* Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism?
Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.

On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list

The list has recently been changed to this: and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.

I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work:
Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: to this: 
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics
 and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association
then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA.
Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).

These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).

Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs
(a) Pro-sex work
(b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and
(c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name
... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.  

I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c)
It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?

As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.

It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.

This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit
naïve when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also naïve to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.


Gendergap mailing list