On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:23, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One more, but
forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is against.
Oh yes, I'm so tactical! (LOL) Regardless, you'll be delighted to know that
after mulling about the image filter and getting all bent out of shape about
it, I've come to this conclusion:
"I don't give a shit about the image filter."
And it's an extremely freeing feeling.
As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
(thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream
pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women
abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it.
Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to
the LGBT movement and identity theory.
Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every
nudity is seen as "pornography", general position of American
feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position,
including inside of your last post: "In principle yes because it looks
like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure
what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it."
In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is
not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image
filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and
questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.