Considering the complaints that we got from female editors when this photo was run on the Commons main page,[1] I imagine there may be some people on this list who would be interested in the following discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Discussion_r...
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_1...
Ryan Kaldari
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Considering the complaints that we got from female editors when this photo was run on the Commons main page,[1] I imagine there may be some people on this list who would be interested in the following discussion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Discussion_r...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_1...
Ryan Kaldari
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
Here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal_edit.j... (This actually ran as picture of the day in early 2011).
More seriously, when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MARTAKIS1.jpg ran as Featured Picture in March of that year, although there was no naked chest or abs shown, I’m pretty sure that there had to be some female readers who lingered on the Main Page longer than usual.
But yes, we should distribute the fanservice equally .
Daniel Case
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status yet.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being featured on the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good enough to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a lot of editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem like a case of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the impact, but maybe that's oversimplifying?
Powers &8^]
Hello,
I wrote to a company which does male fashion and I might write to more, asking them to donate media.
Fashion is controversial but as an industry it has driven world history. Part of fashion is sexuality and Wikipedia is harmed by suppressing sexuality and the world is harmed when Wikipedia does this. Fashion is both what is marketed and how people present themselves in any context.
Two Wikipedians, Dorothy Howard (user:OR drohowa) and Jason Moore (user:Another Believer) are coordinating a Wiki Loves Pride event to commemorate June as LGBT Pride month. Especially if we could present other photos equally objectifying and celebrating a range of genders and body types then this kind of picture presentation could become a more positive experience among a general call for appreciation of sensual beauty in all its forms, rather than just pop-media marketing ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014
The Wikimedia Commons challenge will also be LGBT-themed for June https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge so perhaps people can upload sexiness and fun from various gay pride events around the world in June. Flickr in particular has and will continue to have lots of LGBT pride pictures from around the world. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_events_by_year
I would love to see this controversy turn into a discussion about acceptance of all kinds of people and praise for healthy expression of sexuality.
yours,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM, LtPowers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.comwrote:
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status yet.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being featured on the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good enough to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a lot of editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem like a case of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the impact, but maybe that's oversimplifying?
Powers &8^]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, first off, this isn't a fashion image and isn't utilized as one; it's an image of a mostly nude woman. (Go ahead, try to persuade me that it would qualify as a featured image of a monokini. Yeah, see, not a fashion image.) A number of the FP supports explicitly support because of the (for lack of a better term) "arousability index" of the photo. I don't think it's even a particularly good glamour photo; it's just the best we happen to have, and I'm not sure it would pass FP in 2014. It's nowhere near as good as most of the images in [[Erotic photography]] - and there is currently a discussion to merge [[Glamour photography]] into [[Erotic photography]].
(The paragraph below may be off-topic)
Secondly, I'm not convinced that seeking, curating, and featuring images that objectify subjects in a sexual manner is a particularly useful or encyclopedic goal, absent some genuine artistic merit. Most LGBTQ people I know don't parade around in the nearly-nude even at Pride Week events. Many of the people I know who embrace a more fluid sexuality find that media attention on Pride Week (and LGBTQ issues in general) tends to focus very disproportionately on the prurient and exhibitionist, and the excessive focus on highly sexualized imagery promotes the fallacy that those who are "non-straight" are obsessed with sex to a much greater degree than the "average straight". I sense that most participants on this list would consider sexual orientation/gender identification only one important trait of an individual, so perhaps in that sense *we're* atypical. :-) But I have to say that my favourite unquestionably "gay" image on the project is of two men getting married, and it would be a huge coup to have an image like Michael Sam kissing his partner Vito on NFL draft day to illustrate [[Homosexuality in American football]] - and probably half a dozen other articles.
Risker/Anne
On 14 May 2014 09:56, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I wrote to a company which does male fashion and I might write to more, asking them to donate media.
Fashion is controversial but as an industry it has driven world history. Part of fashion is sexuality and Wikipedia is harmed by suppressing sexuality and the world is harmed when Wikipedia does this. Fashion is both what is marketed and how people present themselves in any context.
Two Wikipedians, Dorothy Howard (user:OR drohowa) and Jason Moore (user:Another Believer) are coordinating a Wiki Loves Pride event to commemorate June as LGBT Pride month. Especially if we could present other photos equally objectifying and celebrating a range of genders and body types then this kind of picture presentation could become a more positive experience among a general call for appreciation of sensual beauty in all its forms, rather than just pop-media marketing ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014
The Wikimedia Commons challenge will also be LGBT-themed for June https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge so perhaps people can upload sexiness and fun from various gay pride events around the world in June. Flickr in particular has and will continue to have lots of LGBT pride pictures from around the world. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_events_by_year
I would love to see this controversy turn into a discussion about acceptance of all kinds of people and praise for healthy expression of sexuality.
yours,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM, LtPowers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.comwrote:
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status yet.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being featured on the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good enough to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a lot of editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem like a case of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the impact, but maybe that's oversimplifying?
Powers &8^]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hello,
I am crossposting to the Wikimedia LGBT list. The issue is whether a photo of a nearly nude female fashion model should be featured as a Wikimedia Commons picture of the Day. There is consensus that Commons should host such pictures; the debate is whether such pictures should be featured in public channels where people who are not requesting this sort of content would see them. < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day...
@Risker - I disagree with your critique that the picture is insignificant in the fashion industry. The person featured in the picture identifies as a fashion model and the picture was donated by her designee as a portrayal of her in accord with her personality rights in the photo. It seems like the picture was donated to Wikimedia Commons in the context of her fashion career. These things and the cultural context of the fashion industry led me to form the opinion that this is a fashion photo meeting the professional standards of a leading model who has worked deeply in the relevant industries over a long and respectable career. By the career described in the Wikipedia article, the person featured in the photo seems among the elite of contemporary fashion models and thus I interpret the creation of the work to be the product of choices made by a person with more agency to make decisions than most other people on this earth. Such as it is, it exemplifies an utterly familiar style in contemporary societies worldwide, and for this reason, I assert it has a place deserving respect in Wikimedia projects.
@Val, as you say, posting sexually objectifying pictures of people of any gender or sexuality harms women, and putting this image in a public place would harm women. In supporting discussions about broadly advertising such images on Wikimedia Commons image I acknowledge that I am intentionally harming women, and I regret that I advocate for the positions which lead to my harm of women. I wish that the harm was not a result of my position, but I keep my position because of benefits associated with it and not harms. I trust you have already had conversations with people in the gay rights movement and have heard that the movement has practiced decades of advocating for healthy gay male gender expression and sexuality, which is different from other kinds of gender expression and sexuality and includes practices which unintentionally challenge the expectations of people who are not gay males. Any community which restricts the expression of sexuality and gender diversity is an unsafe community for persons of all minority genders and sexualities, and for that reason, it is in the interest of sexual and gender minorities to oppose restrictions against such expression. If you wish to talk more about this then I am at hand, but I wanted to acknowledge the harm that I do to you and say that I regret it and seek a reconciliation of ideas or routes to continue the harmful actions while also lessening the harm and making amends.
@ Nathan, yes, Val is presenting a common and compelling perspective. Ryan's notion of a sexualized environment is a great way to think about this - gay males are more likely to find acceptance in such places and any female's risk of harm is increased in such places, so there is tension between the groups because they each shape the environment in a way that makes the other unsafe.
@Moriel - I do not feel strongly about this particular image of a swimsuit girl. I just do not want to propagate a culture of sexual shame, because that kind of culture causes a lot of health problems in the gay male community. There is completely a double standard about the effects of objectifying women versus sexually objectifying males; males simply are not as harmed as women are from this. I regret having to disagree with you in saying that it is always time to talk about sexual health issues because a range of problems including HIV still exist.
I remain grateful for our Adrianne, recently deceased, and her promotion of gay male bondage erotica by coordinating Wikipedia outreach to the Tom of Finland Foundation in Los Angeles. I do not mean to speak for her in mentioning this, so it is enough for me to say that it is uncommon to find women who are sympathetic to the cultural value of transgressive gay pornography. I myself would not have been comfortable encouraging such a countercultural group to be among the first gay activist organizations to partner with the Wikipedia community, but acceptance for all kinds of people seemed to be one of Adrianne's values and I am grateful that she supported their greater prominence when other people did not.
Thanks for your other comments. I am glad that the gender gap board is a positive place for respectful discussion of sexuality, and that all the forms of expression at LGBT events are treated with respect on Wikipedia even if they are minority views.
Please be aware that in the month of June as part of Wiki Loves Pride some sexualized media may be proposed to be featured in various channel feeds on Wikimedia projects. Please follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014 to become aware of content discussions should they occur. I have no particular plans or expectations for Wiki Loves Pride but I would like Wikipedia to become a safer place for gay males and LGBT persons generally. As always, Wikipedians can contact me for voice or video chat which is so much better than text talk.
yours,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, first off, this isn't a fashion image and isn't utilized as one; it's an image of a mostly nude woman. (Go ahead, try to persuade me that it would qualify as a featured image of a monokini. Yeah, see, not a fashion image.) A number of the FP supports explicitly support because of the (for lack of a better term) "arousability index" of the photo. I don't think it's even a particularly good glamour photo; it's just the best we happen to have, and I'm not sure it would pass FP in 2014. It's nowhere near as good as most of the images in [[Erotic photography]] - and there is currently a discussion to merge [[Glamour photography]] into [[Erotic photography]].
(The paragraph below may be off-topic)
Secondly, I'm not convinced that seeking, curating, and featuring images that objectify subjects in a sexual manner is a particularly useful or encyclopedic goal, absent some genuine artistic merit. Most LGBTQ people I know don't parade around in the nearly-nude even at Pride Week events. Many of the people I know who embrace a more fluid sexuality find that media attention on Pride Week (and LGBTQ issues in general) tends to focus very disproportionately on the prurient and exhibitionist, and the excessive focus on highly sexualized imagery promotes the fallacy that those who are "non-straight" are obsessed with sex to a much greater degree than the "average straight". I sense that most participants on this list would consider sexual orientation/gender identification only one important trait of an individual, so perhaps in that sense *we're* atypical. :-) But I have to say that my favourite unquestionably "gay" image on the project is of two men getting married, and it would be a huge coup to have an image like Michael Sam kissing his partner Vito on NFL draft day to illustrate [[Homosexuality in American football]] - and probably half a dozen other articles.
Risker/Anne
On 14 May 2014 09:56, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I wrote to a company which does male fashion and I might write to more, asking them to donate media.
Fashion is controversial but as an industry it has driven world history. Part of fashion is sexuality and Wikipedia is harmed by suppressing sexuality and the world is harmed when Wikipedia does this. Fashion is both what is marketed and how people present themselves in any context.
Two Wikipedians, Dorothy Howard (user:OR drohowa) and Jason Moore (user:Another Believer) are coordinating a Wiki Loves Pride event to commemorate June as LGBT Pride month. Especially if we could present other photos equally objectifying and celebrating a range of genders and body types then this kind of picture presentation could become a more positive experience among a general call for appreciation of sensual beauty in all its forms, rather than just pop-media marketing ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014
The Wikimedia Commons challenge will also be LGBT-themed for June https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge so perhaps people can upload sexiness and fun from various gay pride events around the world in June. Flickr in particular has and will continue to have lots of LGBT pride pictures from around the world. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_events_by_year
I would love to see this controversy turn into a discussion about acceptance of all kinds of people and praise for healthy expression of sexuality.
yours,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM, LtPowers <LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com
wrote:
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status yet.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being featured on the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good enough to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a lot of editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem like a case of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the impact, but maybe that's oversimplifying?
Powers &8^]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi folks,
I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't good either).
In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative, bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment for women.
Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not it.
This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm, both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many other areas of society.
-VAL
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I wrote to a company which does male fashion and I might write to more, asking them to donate media.
Fashion is controversial but as an industry it has driven world history. Part of fashion is sexuality and Wikipedia is harmed by suppressing sexuality and the world is harmed when Wikipedia does this. Fashion is both what is marketed and how people present themselves in any context.
Two Wikipedians, Dorothy Howard (user:OR drohowa) and Jason Moore (user:Another Believer) are coordinating a Wiki Loves Pride event to commemorate June as LGBT Pride month. Especially if we could present other photos equally objectifying and celebrating a range of genders and body types then this kind of picture presentation could become a more positive experience among a general call for appreciation of sensual beauty in all its forms, rather than just pop-media marketing ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014
The Wikimedia Commons challenge will also be LGBT-themed for June https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge so perhaps people can upload sexiness and fun from various gay pride events around the world in June. Flickr in particular has and will continue to have lots of LGBT pride pictures from around the world. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_events_by_year
I would love to see this controversy turn into a discussion about acceptance of all kinds of people and praise for healthy expression of sexuality.
yours,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM, LtPowers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com wrote:
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status yet.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being featured on the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good enough to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a lot of editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem like a case of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the impact, but maybe that's oversimplifying?
Powers &8^]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Thanks for posting this Val.
I failed to stress the sarcasm of my "where is the beefcake?" comment. I'm fine without seeing any "sexy gender" on the front page of Wikipedia.
But, there is that fine line argument of art versus sex. Would a Mapplethorpe photograph be acceptable? Hmm...
-Sarah
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.orgwrote:
Hi folks,
I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't good either).
In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative, bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment for women.
Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not it.
This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm, both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many other areas of society.
-VAL
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com wrote:
Hello,
I wrote to a company which does male fashion and I might write to more, asking them to donate media.
Fashion is controversial but as an industry it has driven world history. Part of fashion is sexuality and Wikipedia is harmed by suppressing sexuality and the world is harmed when Wikipedia does this. Fashion is
both
what is marketed and how people present themselves in any context.
Two Wikipedians, Dorothy Howard (user:OR drohowa) and Jason Moore (user:Another Believer) are coordinating a Wiki Loves Pride event to commemorate June as LGBT Pride month. Especially if we could present
other
photos equally objectifying and celebrating a range of genders and body types then this kind of picture presentation could become a more positive experience among a general call for appreciation of sensual beauty in all its forms, rather than just pop-media marketing ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014
The Wikimedia Commons challenge will also be LGBT-themed for June https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge so perhaps people can upload sexiness and fun from various gay pride
events
around the world in June. Flickr in particular has and will continue to
have
lots of LGBT pride pictures from around the world. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_events_by_year
I would love to see this controversy turn into a discussion about
acceptance
of all kinds of people and praise for healthy expression of sexuality.
yours,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM, LtPowers <
LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
So where is the dude cheesecake? :)
We don't appear to have any that has reached Featured Picture status
yet.
I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't think we should be making value judgments on whether or not a particular FP is "worthy" of being
featured on
the Main Page or not; if it's good enough to be FP, it should be good
enough
to be POTD. But the opponents are right that this would turn off a lot
of
editors and potentially cause a firestorm. That makes this seem like a
case
of maintaining our ideals versus being practical about the impact, but
maybe
that's oversimplifying?
Powers &8^]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Valerie Aurora Executive Director
You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture! Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.orgwrote:
Hi folks,
I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't good either).
In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative, bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment for women.
Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not it.
This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm, both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many other areas of society.
-VAL
This is something that I don't really understand, but I'd like to. However I won't ask you to explain, since it's probably not a great use of your time, but could you point me to some concise discussion of why sexual or sexualized imagery of any kind is inherently discriminatory against women? Is this a commonly accepted viewpoint in academic feminism? Is there an easy way to draw a line between discriminatory and non-discriminatory imagery? (i.e. is a beach selfie of a woman in a bikini posted to Instagram discriminatory, regardless of intent?).
Thanks for any references someone can provide where I might find answers to those questions.
~Nathan
I believe it's a subject of much debate (even among feminists), but some of the basic ideas are covered at http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
Ryan
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Valerie Aurora <valerie@adainitiative.org
wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't good either).
In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative, bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment for women.
Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not it.
This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm, both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many other areas of society.
-VAL
This is something that I don't really understand, but I'd like to. However I won't ask you to explain, since it's probably not a great use of your time, but could you point me to some concise discussion of why sexual or sexualized imagery of any kind is inherently discriminatory against women? Is this a commonly accepted viewpoint in academic feminism? Is there an easy way to draw a line between discriminatory and non-discriminatory imagery? (i.e. is a beach selfie of a woman in a bikini posted to Instagram discriminatory, regardless of intent?).
Thanks for any references someone can provide where I might find answers to those questions.
~Nathan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
My very brief contribution (in between exams) with something I think deserves emphasis: if we agree that women and non-heterosexual-men are already underrepresented, then having whatever representation we already have be sexualized produces the exact opposite result to the equal representation we aim for.
Isn't the entire point that we want to represent women, and not the heterosexual fantasy of women?
There are enough places that seem to insist women are only their bodies, for men's approval. If the goal of the community is to encourage more women to feel like they belong here, we don't need another picture to emphasize that overwhelming trend.
If all in all the representation was equal, then one such photo probably wouldn't have bothered us. And yet, it is, by far, not equal.
We might be there at some point in the future, where these discussions could be focused on whether or not sex in general has a place, but we're not there yet. On May 14, 2014 2:09 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I believe it's a subject of much debate (even among feminists), but some of the basic ideas are covered at http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
Ryan
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Valerie Aurora < valerie@adainitiative.org> wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't good either).
In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative, bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment for women.
Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not it.
This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm, both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many other areas of society.
-VAL
This is something that I don't really understand, but I'd like to. However I won't ask you to explain, since it's probably not a great use of your time, but could you point me to some concise discussion of why sexual or sexualized imagery of any kind is inherently discriminatory against women? Is this a commonly accepted viewpoint in academic feminism? Is there an easy way to draw a line between discriminatory and non-discriminatory imagery? (i.e. is a beach selfie of a woman in a bikini posted to Instagram discriminatory, regardless of intent?).
Thanks for any references someone can provide where I might find answers to those questions.
~Nathan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Great points Moriel - thanks for contributing to the discussion.
When this mailing list was a hot bed of discussion a few years back a number of us tossed around the idea about media projects to tackle systemic bias. Such as photography competitions related to women, women subjects, whatever. I'm still sure exactly what that would comprise of yet, but, we did find it a fun idea to have something like "Wiki Loves Women" instead of Wiki Love Monuments - but again, no clue what that would entail and the name still needs tweaking :)
I really look forward to seeing how this works out for the LGBTQ events in June - where we have more than just photos of revelers at gay pride festivals :)
-Sarah
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Moriel Schottlender moriel@gmail.comwrote:
My very brief contribution (in between exams) with something I think deserves emphasis: if we agree that women and non-heterosexual-men are already underrepresented, then having whatever representation we already have be sexualized produces the exact opposite result to the equal representation we aim for.
Isn't the entire point that we want to represent women, and not the heterosexual fantasy of women?
There are enough places that seem to insist women are only their bodies, for men's approval. If the goal of the community is to encourage more women to feel like they belong here, we don't need another picture to emphasize that overwhelming trend.
If all in all the representation was equal, then one such photo probably wouldn't have bothered us. And yet, it is, by far, not equal.
We might be there at some point in the future, where these discussions could be focused on whether or not sex in general has a place, but we're not there yet. On May 14, 2014 2:09 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I believe it's a subject of much debate (even among feminists), but some of the basic ideas are covered at http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
Ryan
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Valerie Aurora < valerie@adainitiative.org> wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't good either).
In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative, bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment for women.
Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not it.
This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm, both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many other areas of society.
-VAL
This is something that I don't really understand, but I'd like to. However I won't ask you to explain, since it's probably not a great use of your time, but could you point me to some concise discussion of why sexual or sexualized imagery of any kind is inherently discriminatory against women? Is this a commonly accepted viewpoint in academic feminism? Is there an easy way to draw a line between discriminatory and non-discriminatory imagery? (i.e. is a beach selfie of a woman in a bikini posted to Instagram discriminatory, regardless of intent?).
Thanks for any references someone can provide where I might find answers to those questions.
~Nathan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 5/14/2014 7:05 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Great points Moriel - thanks for contributing to the discussion.
When this mailing list was a hot bed of discussion a few years back a number of us tossed around the idea about media projects to tackle systemic bias. Such as photography competitions related to women, women subjects, whatever. I'm still sure exactly what that would comprise of yet, but, we did find it a fun idea to have something like "Wiki Loves Women" instead of Wiki Love Monuments - but again, no clue what that would entail and the name still needs tweaking :)
"Wiki respects women" would get more satisfactory results.
(smiley deleted)
CM
