[Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

[Milos Rancic]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a "concerned feminist"
> who "lives in America" the idea of calling the women who support the
> referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized
> images on articles as "educational" when they really aren't, "sexually
> impaired" - is beyond sexist.  Unless, perhaps, I'm mis-understanding your
> post.

I am feminist as well and contrary to my previous examples -- which
were male-exclusive -- I intentionally gave example of one female
organization. I see no problem in being sarcastic toward any gender
while it is consistent.

> Voices are being heard who are against tacky bad sexualized images. The
> group of people who support this "Commons is the dump of the sum of crappy
> free photos for the world" way of thinking might be the loudest, but they
> are the smallest in numbers, when it comes to English landscapes, from my
> understanding. If people want to bombard us with more sexualized images,
> we'll just keep fighting back. I can pay for my porn, I don't need it on
> Commons.

We don't talk here about crappy images, but about *any* image which
depicts nude body or sexual act for *educational* purposes.

> The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this anti-sexualized
> environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are
> pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what
> other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America.  I think
> you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing
> supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional
> conservatives.

Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?