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

[Sarah Stierch]

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.

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).

And I'm sure there are plenty of other people, regardless of gender,
nationality, sexuality or other demographics that probably would feel the
same way.

It's funny that you just turned this into a "think about the children"
feminism "thing."  I guess in your eyes I'm a failed feminist. ;)

-Sarah
Who learned more about sexuality from Madonna then she ever did from school
books or the internet.


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/