[Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

[Theo10011]

Hi Sarah

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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."
> >
> >
> Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I
> believe
> in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American
> because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a
> naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people
> want
> to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the
> power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really
> need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.
>

I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong.
Weren't you the one surprised to find an "in your face photo
of a vagina" on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was
up-front and at the top unlike the article about penis where a "big giant
penis in one's face upon opening it" ? just in case here it is [1]. Also,
there is no difference between the pictures on the articles on these
anatomical parts, the article you needed to compare it to was [[Human
penis]] where is does have an "in you face photo" at the exact same place as
the one about Vagina. I have a hard time understanding how you can claim to
have either of those positions and resolve it with your earlier statements,
but to each his own. I would even go as far as to say, that your original
comments didn't appear very feminist at first glance.

You are correct that if "people want to censor what the hell goes on in
their own home, they should have the power to do that", The question here
is, who should develop such a way? people here are mostly arguing, if there
is a need, someone would do it.


>
> Being called names and being lumped into a "oh all Americans are pro
> filter,
> blahblahblah, think nudity is bad" is really tiresome.
>
> That quote also isn't mine.
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think "girls should not be
> educated" about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
> "sexual content" by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
> watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's "SEX." Knowing how
> I
> was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I
> wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for
> some
> juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia
> (because
> we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).
>

Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version
of yourself to learn about "sexual content" from Playboys or Madonna's "SEX"
(both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you
and half the people here edit. It might have a couple of graphic images of
body parts we all have but it has a other things to like important
information, text, statistics, some even consider that educational. Now I
don't know how playboy or Madonna's "SEX" are looked at by feminists, but I
would always prefer an encyclopedia over it (even with an in your face
picture of a human anatomical part).

Regards
Theo

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067980.html