Pulling out a couple of comments for reply from Marie's statement:
On 11/30/2014 1:46 AM, Marie Earley wrote:
..
In particular this comment:
"...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
/repeatedly,/ there is some question as to exactly /which/ women this
group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is
more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
**There
definitely are all sorts of feminists. But what happened here
was that Eric Corbett defined what is an isn't an acceptable level of
feminism and then various of his women friends who may or may not
identify as feminists would pop up during GGTF and even more during
Arbitration to complain about the horrible radical feminists at GGTF. I
have yet to see these horrible radical feminist quotes. Off hand I know
there were a couple rather radical proposals by males; my joke about the
"systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!); and
angry reactions by a number of males and females who protested the
sexist badgering and rejection of opinions of those who supported the
project. So Eric, who has been helpful to some women, had lots of women
supporters jumping up to poison the well. I'm sure some women who have
lower key approaches than others of us were genuinely upset by some
womens strong reactions; but maybe their definitions of proper female
behavior are way too narrow.
It was quite disappointing when I realized that one editor who
identified as female (though not on her user pages) and kept boasting
about being a feminist, put down other women she disagreed with and
badgered us to make alliance with her on articles she wanted to change.
Much later I discovered that early in 2014 she was joking with Eric on
his talk page about his not having been naughty enough and causing
controversy lately!! She got all the controversy she wanted at GGTF!!!
(I put that in evidence.)
...These organisations / individuals argues against
sex work on the
grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing
/ object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is
they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box
labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people
that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are
probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA
have is that, human development and capability, which includes
feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively
constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to
stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The
natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project.
Which is why they write nonsense like this:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh…
(if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking
about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
**As a libertarian I
don't want to see it illegal (unless it portrays
violence forced on women or men). As a feminist I think it's quite often
a sick addiction and higher consciousness humans would have little use
for it. But that's the bottom line issue at Wikipedia: too many male
editors motivated by base emotions and addictions, angry at women for
competing with them on wikipedia or not fulfilling their emotional and
sexual needs in the real world, and thus engaging in personal attacks,
harassment and "gang banger" behavior. Maybe it is only a few hundred
like that, out of thousands of male editors, but that's enough to make
Wikipedia an incredibly hostile environment for most women, males,
mature people, professionals, etc.
CM