[Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Nathan]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>wrote:

> Daniel, I totally <3 your use of denial and hostile work environment.
>
> Chiming in right now. Been following it since it was posted on WP:Feminism
> and was sickened by the conversation, so had to move on..
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
Daniel pointed to the reply to his comments as of particular interest to
this list... but I think Daniel's comments themselves are just as weighted
with unintentional meaning. Describing a photo of a nude pregnant woman on
the [[Pregnancy]] article as potentially gratuitous in its nudity, using a
euphemism for nudity, and assuming that "most workplaces" have rules against
nudity demonstrate that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate
cultural biases from editorial decisions.

Since we know that the gender gap exists in many cultures, and not just the
U.S. or Europe, being aware of and sensitive to specific cultural biases
takes on special merit here. Far more "gratuitous" nudity is not terribly
uncommon throughout Western Europe, for example, in everything from general
interest magazines and newspapers to street ads, movies, other media and
even in personal interaction (see [[Love parade]]).

It seems like there must be lower hanging fruit than the image of a naked
pregnant woman on the pregnancy article, or an image of a vagina on the
vagina article. Using the principle of least surprise as a guide, these
examples should be on the lower end of the spectrum of concern.

Nathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110906/e6bc905e/attachment.htm