It is impossible not to get upset. In my memory we worked to honor Alice Paul. She never saw the ERA pass. (and neither have I) It's is so soon in the history of the world that women have been able to vote.It has not even been 100 years in the U.S.
Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back little by little...but each day another woman steps up on your shoulders and is carried to make an edit that changes their horridness.
it is a long slow fight.
I have been at it for years and years in the pre-Internet days and I drop out for months at a time. Then go back. Your work, Sarah has been read by an entire class I teach and given much heart to many young women. Don't give up.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM, anna jonsson annabarro@hotmail.comwrote:
[image: Emoji]for your good work !! Anna Jonsson
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:29:40 -0700 From: sarah.stierch@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp
Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the subjects. I just need to personally vent and this gives me a chance (thanks Katherine). I assume I can't be the only one who feels this way, and it seems you might also.
I totally understand the "it depresses me" situation. I got involved in some of the discussions about the women's foo categories only to get bombarded with comments when I brought up "I don't know if anyone here is even a woman involved, from what I know, I think I might be the only woman here," and then to be snapped at "How do you know I'm not a woman?" by someone with a male user name (Jeremy). I felt like a total fail, and basically left the conversation only to get comments on my talk page. I have officially declared I'm "burnt out" on any and all gender conversations, specifically triggered by the recent category situation.
95% if not more of the people discussing all of these things are, from what I believe, identifying on Wikipedia as the masculine. It's really troubling for me, and right now I'm at the point where I just can't fight it right now. I'm feeling depressed about it, hopeless, and all of the other fun things that go with burn out. (Funny, I didn't suffer burn out this severe when I was a fellow, but I did have two minor bouts of burn out during that year, this is by far the worst)
I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.
Gah. :(
-Sarah
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events (note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if you don't click through to the image/article):
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on WP, and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary indiscretion in a public place."*
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_...<---Same image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
- The image is kept.
- Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_t..., splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and another saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."
Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has gone through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was almost certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's dismissive approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and finally "realization that in all three discussions, I see *no *users who I know to be female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of whether this woman's right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her breasts...is being discussed 100% by men."
I don't quite know what my point is here, other than to note that to me, this feels very, very representative of the way women and women's issues are treated on WP and on Commons, even when we're supposed to be hyper-aware of the gendergap and its effects, and it depresses me.
-Fluffernutter
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
*Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.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
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Kathleen McCook klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back little by little...but each day another woman steps up on your shoulders and is carried to make an edit that changes their horridness. ...
I noticed recently that [[List of vegetarians]] on the English Wikipedia contained 13 images of women, five of which were of porn stars, Playmates of the Year, etc, including the first image. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=5518...
An earlier version contained six out of 13. The first two images at that time were Pamela Anderson in a bikini, followed by Jayde Nicole, a Playboy Playmate of the Year. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=5053...
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject Pornography, so it seems likely that some at least will be kept; the article is now down to two images of porn stars and starts with Christine Lagarde, director-general of the International Monetary Fund. The editor who first added the images wrote on talk that, if we really want the images to be representative of women in general, "we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes."
I was hesitant to mention this on the list to avoid allegations of offwiki canvassing, so it's probably best that no one go to the RfC to comment. But I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It does seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant.
Sarah
On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject Pornography, so it seems likely that some at least will be kept; the article is now down to two images of porn stars and starts with Christine Lagarde, director-general of the International Monetary Fund. The editor who first added the images wrote on talk that, if we really want the images to be representative of women in general, "we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes."
O_o
Well, we also know that PETA is a big fan of pushing celebrity - let alone naked celebrities (or "hot" models) for the sake of vegetarianism and animal rights. I'm sure that doesn't help the situation!
-Sarah
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject Pornography, so it seems likely that some at least will be kept; the article is now down to two images of porn stars and starts with Christine Lagarde, director-general of the International Monetary Fund. The editor who first added the images wrote on talk that, if we really want the images to be representative of women in general, "we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes."
O_o
Well, we also know that PETA is a big fan of pushing celebrity - let alone naked celebrities (or "hot" models) for the sake of vegetarianism and animal rights. I'm sure that doesn't help the situation!
-Sarah
Yes, indeed, that was mentioned and cited as a reason (or excuse).
Sarah
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
But I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It does seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant.
It is, and the reason is that it is humoured and swept under the carpet, rather than confronted. Why is it humoured? Because people fear upsetting a certain segment of male contributors, and the reputational cost to the Wikimedia Foundation is still not significant enough.
I so admire Filipacchi. She did the right thing: rather than going to Wikipedia and arguing with the likes of Qworty and JPL, where she would *simply have been abused with impunity, and accused of violating AGF*, she went to the press.
Sexism in Wikipedia may or may not be addressed when the general public is fully aware of it, and thoroughly disgusted with it, but certainly not before then.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
But I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It does seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant.
It is, and the reason is that it is humoured and swept under the carpet, rather than confronted. Why is it humoured? Because people fear upsetting a certain segment of male contributors, and the reputational cost to the Wikimedia Foundation is still not significant enough.
I so admire Filipacchi. She did the right thing: rather than going to Wikipedia and arguing with the likes of Qworty and JPL, where she would simply have been abused with impunity, and accused of violating AGF, she went to the press.
Sexism in Wikipedia may or may not be addressed when the general public is fully aware of it, and thoroughly disgusted with it, but certainly not before then.
It's a good question. Why is it humoured?
Sarah
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
It's a good question. Why is it humoured?
It doesn't look like you're going to get an answer.
So, in the absence of an answer, why do other contributors here think the sort of nonsense Sarah has had to deal with a [[Talk:List of vegetarians]] is humoured?
What could the WMF do to address it that it isn't doing right now?
Frankly, I don't know why this is a "feminist" issue; rather than an issue of common sense.
It is not a finite list, and for the vast majority of people on the list, being a vegetarian is hardly responsible for even the smallest piece of their notability; it is an arbitrary piece of trivia for most of them. Take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde for example, her vegetarianism is but an afterthought in her biography, yet she is being placed as the most prominent vegetarian in that article. I would argue that this is taking the whole "feminist" issue to its most illogical and extreme.
And it is open to "western bias". Take the number of Indians on the list, for example. There are only TWENTY Indians on the list. If we transplant the 31% of Indians who are vegetarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#India) to this list, 31% of subjects of Indian biographical articles should be placed in this article (all things considered same-same). And if we did want to use the "lead photo" to depict a truly known vegetarian, one could ask why Gandhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi#Vegetarianism_and_food) has been relegated to below several people whom the average person has never heard of (with the likely exception of Natalie Portman and Martina Navratilova). This is a precise example of said western bias in action.
The common sense approach would ask, why do we need a [[List of vegetarians]] in the first place, when [[:Category:Vegetarians]] would be a much better way to handle such infinite lists.
I appreciate that people want to remove an over-the-top amount of adult entertainers from the list, and rightly so, but again I fear that the bigger picture has yet again been missed, and people are looking at things from the wrong perspective.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
It's a good question. Why is it humoured?
It doesn't look like you're going to get an answer.
So, in the absence of an answer, why do other contributors here think the sort of nonsense Sarah has had to deal with a [[Talk:List of vegetarians]] is humoured?
What could the WMF do to address it that it isn't doing right now?
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.comwrote:
Frankly, I don't know why this is a "feminist" issue; rather than an issue of common sense.
It is not a finite list, and for the vast majority of people on the list, being a vegetarian is hardly responsible for even the smallest piece of their notability; it is an arbitrary piece of trivia for most of them. Take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde for example, her vegetarianism is but an afterthought in her biography, yet she is being placed as the most prominent vegetarian in that article. I would argue that this is taking the whole "feminist" issue to its most illogical and extreme. ...
Cheers,
Russavia
Hi Russavia, the question is why Wikipedia represented 13 women vegetarians visually by including six porn stars. They were there from at least June 2010 until recently, and even now there are still three. If a similarly racist situation existed, I think it would have been spotted and dealt with faster.
As of August 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=5053... list of women consisted of:
Former porn star in a bikini; Playboy Playmate with breasts half exposed; tennis player; figure skater; actress; singer; presenter and model; actress; politician; singer; actress; primatologist; singer; model in a bikini; Playboy Playmate; dancer; Playboy Playmate; actress; porn actress.
But the list of men was very different:
Doctor and politician; scientist; revolutionary; philosopher; politician; playwright; chief rabbi; artist; chief rabbi; psychiatrist; journalist; writer; doctor; novelist; architect; Archbishop of Constantinople; poet; singer-songwriter; comedian; doctor; football player; actor; musician; fictional character.
That we allow women and men to be represented so differently suggests that Wikipedia has a problem recognizing and dealing with sexism. So the question is why, and how can we change it?
Sarah
On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote:
Frankly, I don't know why this is a "feminist" issue; rather than an issue of common sense.
Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. This immediately triggers the censorship-defense mechanism in those who believe that feminists want to ban nudity from the internet (or something like that). You're not going to convince these editors that it is important to examine the biased representation of women on Wikipedia. What you might convince them of is that Gandhi is a more notable vegetarian than Serenity, the exotic dancer. Or that a photograph of a 3rd trimester pregnancy is a better illustration of 'pregnancy' than a photograph of a 1st trimester pregnancy. In other words, if you don't have to debate the nudity, don't. It will only steer the discussion into a culture war in which you will be hopelessly outnumbered.
Ryan 'Mansplainer' Kaldari
Ryan Kaldari, 08/05/2013 07:09:
On 5/7/13 9:57 AM, Russavia wrote:
Frankly, I don't know why this is a "feminist" issue; rather than an issue of common sense.
Agreed. I often find it is counter-productive to frame these sort of debates in terms of feminism/sexism/etc. [...]
Sure. I'm not following this list that closely lately, but since when it's been hijacked by musty debates on nudity images? Is it the end of any hope in the usefulness of this list/group, or just a phase? I guess it's a pattern, we now entered the equivalent of the 1980s decadence of feminism. http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/pornography/background/CMC_article.h... «Combining both sexual preference issues and political coercion concerns, Pat Califia sees the MacKinnon/Dworkin legal initiative as opening the door for suppression of gay rights and the gay life-style.» So in the next decade we may see better understanding. Is there something we can learn from the past to make this process less painful? Maybe: «Feminists should reconsider their role in advancing or obstructing the agendas of sex worker unions, and how their work on behalf of the many victims of sexual violence can be continued without perpetuating the marginalization of sex performers and providers.» http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/ Or as a student says: «In the course of my research, I do believe that the older feminist stance on pornography, as represented by the leaders of the heyday of the feminist anti-pornography movement, Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, is one that has been subsequently revealed to be both outdated and no longer useful for modern feminists. [...] I would argue in focusing on the evils of pornography, feminists are merely masking larger, deeper, and far more important issues.» http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1630
Nemo