Warning: a very long post indeed.
Ingrid Schupbach wrote:
>
> [...] If there
> really is a commitment to making Linux inviting to everyone,
I'm not sure if it has to be inviting to everyone. Nothing
ever is and same it is for Linux. The whole effort is
developer-driven and despite KDE and similar stuff a spice
of this spirit will notably remain. I believe this is clear
to everyone except for some utmost zealotic Linux
evangelists, who as all other zealotic evangelists have
problems on their own they can't cope with so they go
preach and teach others.
> then I
> believe there needs to be a change in the horny-male-geeks-only atmosphere
> that's awfully pervasive. I'm tired of being asked whether I'm a
> perky-breasted-Linux-chick, and I'm tired of endless references to penises
> and to porn in Linux-related irc channels.
What about changing your nick?
Which brings me to what conotation the word chick in English
really has? What exactly is it? A young woman? A girl (in the
dilated and malformed sense)?
Sio wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Ingrid Schupbach wrote:
> > lockeroom atmosphere. As a woman, it just doesn't make it seem like I'm
> > really invited.
>
> As a woman, I still really enjoy looking at pretty people. Male AND
> female. Not to mention, when I go to themes.org to look for a theme, I am
> looking at the THEME, not the pics that people have in their screenshots.
As a man, I also enjoy looking at pretty people. Only it's female
and male :-). Whether they are dressed or undressed or "scantily
clad" or nude or whatever. The amount of clothing is not really
a suitable criterion.
> It sounds like you are just a little too worked up over this.
> Realistically, the Linux community has a lot more men than women.
> I don't see that themes.org is inundated with images of scantily clad
> women. I see a low ratio, in fact, and most of the time the images are of
> a model or actress, rather than some piece of web scoured porn. In all
> cases, I have found the images to be tasteful.
>
> I think its a matter of realizing that you are there to look at the
> THEMES, rather than to judge the quality and/or kind of images people use
> in their screenshots. The two are totally unrelated, as far as I can tell.
>
> Really. Most of the people in the Linux community are men, and if they
> want to put sexy women in their screenshots, then GREAT. I will start
> protesting the day they put in things like images of dismembered children,
> and not a day before.
Hmm. Sio, you should post more often ... Not because I share
your opinion this time, but you know when to ground your stand
and when the style suffices and is thus grounding not needed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, I'm generalising. But in every endeavour in life - Linux is not immune
> - there are those who are still young enough, male and female, to be primarily
> interested in sex (or mate-location).
Hm. If I understand this correctly, mating location is some
company that suits someone well enough to idetify oneself
with.
Am I correct (I'm not native English speaker)?
Cause if it is so, we all do the same thing. Nothing wrong
with that.
Or is that mate not in connection with mate as a colleague
but with mating as a reproductive mechanism?
> People who have passed that point tend to let the 'youngsters' have their
> own little clique-spaces to play, and go into the kitchen to chat over
> coffee. Want to come join us in the kitchen, and let the youngsters play
> with their naked-girl (or wedding bells) themes?
There's room for anyone in this house of Earth...
Naomi Hospodarsky wrote:
>
> MMMMMM, I understand where Ingrid is coming from....I mean, I get very
> tired of seeing women constantly treated as sexual objects or fantasy
> objects instead of real people.
What about ignoring it? I experienced it also from women and if
ignored, it sorted itself out. And no it is not happening
constantly at all :-) It's very rare, actually.
Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> It has nothing to do with age, something to do with a lack of respect and
> probably something to do with not actually getting any in real life :)
Some guy finds a picture of a woman in a bathing suit tasteful
or appealing (not even necessarily sexually appealing) and you
proclaim it a lack of respect? Boy, are you prejudiced.
I remember some guy had a semi-nude picture of his GF as a
background on his laptop and when crossing the border his
hard disk was searched because he was suspected of
smuggling pornography. That's information society for you.
> > Yes, I'm generalising. But in every endeavour in life - Linux is not immune
> > - there are those who are still young enough, male and female, to be primarily
> > interested in sex (or mate-location).
>
> It's not being primarily interested in sex or mate location that's the
> problem -- heh, ask deirdre what my favorite after work phrase is (try: I
> need a girlfriend!) -- it's about respecting others and keeping things in
> appropriate places. I don't care how horny you are, pin-up girls aren't
> appropriate cubical decorations at work, and gratuitous naked girls aren't
> *really* appropriate when showing what a theme looks like.
Again, what connection do themes and backgrounds really
have? Is it not appropriate because you find it morally
wrong? Distasteful? Not "appropriate" according to some
unwritten rule? Sexist? Sexist because of lack of same
number of backgrounds of scantily clad men?
> > People who have passed that point tend to let the 'youngsters' have their
> > own little clique-spaces to play, and go into the kitchen to chat over
> > coffee. Want to come join us in the kitchen, and let the youngsters play
> > with their naked-girl (or wedding bells) themes?
>
> it's not naked girl themes that are the problem (or at least, all of the
> problem) -- it's that in many *non* adult themes, there are gratuitous
> pictures of naked or nearly naked women (never men) in the screenshot.
> What I'm trying to think of right now is how to deal with it...
Now, some idea ... Dou you have to deal with it at all? Or do
something about it? What about finding what is it in *you*
that makes those pictures look not in the right place for you
but in right place for creators?
CaroLyn Schneider wrote:
>
> Hi Ingrid.
>
> I agree with your sentiment - it's bad marketing if you want to attract
> (straight) women (and queer men and people who aren't attracted/aroused by
> nudie shots). However, most Linux geeks aren't marketers. If we were, would we
> name our applications things like gimp and kill? :)
No. GIMP would be ImageStyler ToolShop Ultra Deluxe Special
Edition Mark II.
Oh, Pro, I forgot Pro. Every major or minor program on the
market is Pro. So:
ImageStyler ToolShop Pro Ultra Deluxe Special Edition Mark II.
This sounds more like it. People would buy it like madmen.
Instead of 'kill' we could prehaps use 'retire'. Processes
signed with a Z in top would therefore become retired zombies.
> I understand your dismay that there are folks out there who are eager to show
> off their latest girlie picture - I have the same gut reaction, but when it
It's their little world they live in. Don't blame anybody for
it, we're all guilty of more or less the same thing, it's just
that the sizes are different. They are to increase with age but
sadly this is not always the case.
> comes down to it, I subscribe to the following paraphrased quotation of
> someone whose name I've forgotten:
>
> 'I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend until my death your
> right to say it.'
It vas Voltaire old chap. Actually I think it was said in a
quarrel and he said "I totally disagree ...".
> That's what it (pornography) comes down to for me - it's freedom of speech.
> Very very important concept. Let's hang on to it.
You cannot have selective freedom of speech - freedom for the
tasteful, freedom for the right, freedom for ours, freedom for
this or that. Freedom is by its very nature universal. And so
intimate and so very yours it can never be stolen from you,
not even in jail. Freedom is a concept that not very many
people can grasp as a whole and probably noone can explain it
to someone else satisfactorily - you have to dig in yourself
and find it on your own.
Ingrid Schupbach wrote:
> The question that I don't have the answer to, is how do we bring about
> change, how do we create a community that's a little bit more thoughtful.
Thoughtful. Let me answer this with an example. If someone
writes something he believes in and someone else gets
offended, who is "guilty" of the offense? I'd say the
offended one because of not being able to accept other
opinions without being offended. It's his problem, right?
This is a major prerequisite for a tolerant society.
> One answer is to start new places/sites/chat rooms with a different
> attitude. Another is to try to raise a bit more awareness in the existing
> places/sites/irc channels. The two options aren't mutually exclusive,
> either. Certainly discussions like the one we're engaged in here are an
> important part of the process.
Reformers never start at themselves. Once you find out what
bothers you you won't be bothered any more. My little sister
used to cover the nudie in some weekly magazine while she
was reading other stuff. I said nothing. After she talked
about it and evidently wanted to know my opinion I told her
not to care too much and most certainly not to condemn the
model in picture; they usually don't have a problem with
nudity and that's why they pose. Now she just takes a look
and goes on reading what's interesting.
Also, by pressing on channels, IRC rooms and the like you
just remove the symptoms, not the cause. But maybe it is
worth the effort if so many women feel offended -- by
changing this, the m/f ratio would improve dramatically.
Actually, a couple of years ago when I used to hang on IRC
occasionally, I was more or less staying in the same room
because it was tolerant, bashing-free, kicking-free,
begging-for-ops-free and had lots of women you could talk
to about all sorts of stuff (mothers, housewives etc) and
I never got idea why the same room worked for me so well
I didn't care to look at others -- until now. It was a lot
like these lists.
> Further, I wanted to tell you that I emailed one gentleman who advertised
> his background-changing applet with screenshots replete with pin-ups.
> After a bit of email discussion, we decided that I would install his
> applet and send him pictures of my desktop.
Good. I guess it will help more tham rant. Not that
occasional ranting is not a good idea ...
Naomi Hospodarsky wrote:
> My point was simply that it is tiring and as I woman I often get the
> impression that men are more interested in me for my body than for what I
> actually know about computers or networking.
Then you must have terribly good looks or those men don't see a
female very often or both. You can always try to use it to
transfer their interest where you want it to. It quite often
works. Also if you reverse the sexes.
> I also understand that many women buy into the whole "sex-object" thing,
> but that doesn't mean its right or good to continue to view women that
> way. And it also seems that there are many women and men on this list who
> don't buy into objectification. Just because 20 lemmings jump off a cliff
> doesn't make it a good idea.
Question is, why do they buy it? I'd say mostly because it
sometimes is the line of the least resistance. I don't blame
them. What I dislike is horny women that want to use this
psychological mechanism in order to get satisfied, but only
because they usually behave deliberately distasteful.
Fortunately there isn't much of those around. I've met only
about half a dozen so far.
Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> > "Just deal with it."
> > What does it matter that you're a woman?
> > I know plenty of women who have "lusty" pictures of women on their computer.
>
> It's not that -- someone want to make some (non-adult, preferably, as
> that's my area of most annoyance) themes, make some screenshots with
> windows containing semi-naked males and see what happens?
Be honest: are you as appalingly annoyed when you find a music
background/theme filed in, say, SF area?
> Vinnie (I wanna cigarette! grrr)
Keep on! Your lungs will appreciate. Your bank account too.
Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> > It sure can't be changed if no one tries.
> >
> Yep, and when we try, want to bet we get a pretty hostile response, akin to
> what the articles on ZDNet and Slashdot about LinuxChix got, or far worse?
> What I find, when it comes to issues like this (and sexism as well) is that
> most guys don't even recognize that there *is* a problem, and get all bent
> out of shape when we dare talk about it. Not all guys, of course, not the
> sensitive ones, but the majority to be sure.
Is the slashdot guys' opinions about women-in-computing
matters something you care to read? Or even notice?
According to the /. readership reaction described on the
lists a while ago (I havent' read them myself) it is a
waste of time or effort to care about it.
> That's why I agreed with Ingrid in the first place. It's so accepted by the
> guys, and they don't even realize that they are being offensive to many
> women. Then, if we complain, we get the "just deal with it" or "some
> women..." posts, as if that makes it alright. It doesn't.
Yeah. It's just as accepted as men-bashing in extreme feminist
groups. But since this is evidently more general phenomenon,
question arises whether it is in nature of men or it is a
cultural effect. I'd say it's both. No, don't flame me yet;
read the paragraph through the end. Men have different point
of view on sex. Many women complain they finish and just get
out of the bed when it still smells sweet of love.
I think this not abruptly huge difference between sexes (part
of which stems from physiological differences in reproductive
mechanisms) might have given some of the foundation to
cultural differences. But again I may be wrong, this is merely
a speculation.
> > And it's not just segregation of themes -- the idea of adult themes having
> > adult pics in their screenshots is one thing, and isn't particularly
> > interesting to me right this moment...it's that the other themes do,
> > too...
>
> Exactly. If I go look at an SF theme, or a nature theme, or whatever, I
> don't necessarily want adult pictures.
Again: is your negative reaction of the same magnitude if an
SF theme gets to animal theme folder?
Laurel Fan wrote:
> I didn't see anything particularly inappropriate, except for the imac
> girl (which is another issue...). YMMV.
What's imac girl?
Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Laurel Fan wrote:
> > Hm. I haven't really noticed this, but it might just be because I don't
> > look for themes, and don't often view screenshots. So I decided to do a
> > little unscientific experiment.
>
> what struck me is that every time I wander over there (which is rarely)
> usually the second or third one I click on does
Mybe you just attract them ... :-)
> but then the laws of probability don't tend to apply much to me or
> something :)
Do laws of probability affect their own validity? :-)
> I posted up two..you might try music (which I know one is from)
By the way, does it also offend you when a female singer
decides to pose in underwear for the CD album cover?
Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:24:01 -0400, Brendan/Coolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >Is this a new idea? You get the impression because it's a fact. Men
> >are built this way, it's the whole nature thing.
>
> I don't buy this. The privilege of degrading women is something that
> men are taught they have from an early age, not something which men
> have no choice but to do as a consequence of their genes.
No, degrading women is definitely a cultural thing, most
tightly tied to X, X and X religions (off topic which they
are), as some notable anthropologist studies have shown,
but unfortunately I forgot the authors so I cannot give
you any pointers.
Sio wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> > There's a theme on themes.org that has a bunch of beer-commercial-type
> > pictures as an integral part of the theme. I don't consider digitally
> > modifying the photo to scribble "LINUX 2.0" on the waistband of the
> > model's rather scanty swimsuit "tasteful" either.
>
> *hahahahaha*
>
> See that's the great thing about the world. Your idea of tasteful is
> obviously different from mine. I think that's funny as hell. You obviously
> don't :)
>
> Oh well.
Yeah, It was funny to me to. I took a look at the picture again
and was unable to find what's untasteful about a simple picture
of a woman in a bathing suit. Which by the way was not scanty
-- I see that kind of stuff worn almost exclusively on beaches
here, mostly even less. Topless women are nothing unusual also.
You get many women in bathing suits on a beach and noone finds
it untasteful or gets aroused. Admittedly, I haven't seen any
with Linux 2.0 written on the waistband. Then my perception
would entirely be different and I would find the woman sexy
and distasteful as hell :-)
Seriously, it was kinda funny in a sense of a commercial: "The
2.0 kernel is out. She's new and improved" ...
What could be offending on that screenshot was the iconized
windows on BitchX where there was a bitmap of a woman (I think
topless) to graphically identify program with.
Question for men on this list: If there was a guy in boxer
shorts or bathing pants and there was printed "Linux 2.0. Better
than ever." on them would someone be offended?
Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> That is a totally different issue dealing with societal norms. One thing
> at a time. We're agreed on the "Disney rule" then? If it has a random
> nipple hanging out of a screenshot, that has adult content and should be
> filed accordingly...The whole societal norm thing will have to go into
> another message as this blanket is so warm, and Law and Order is a really
> good episode....snore...
Oh, that's why commercials with bare-breasted women are not
allowed in the USA. At least I read that in the PC Magazine.
Dakota Surmonde wrote:
> see, I don't think nude='adult' (or sexual -- actually, I saw one of my
> favorite calvin and hobbes today -- the one where calvin is looking at
> the movie listings and asks hobbes " 'contains adult situations'? What
> are adult situations?" and hobbes answers with something like "oh,
> work, paying bills, things like that" :) -- or objectification -- or
> degradation, all of which, btw are different things)...
Where exactly did the term 'adult' come from to notify sexual
content anyway? I don't think adults are the group most
interested in the material. I remember we were looking at the
stuff when we were 13 or so, one year younger did a year
before. I don't know where the curiosity barrier is now, but
it is far below "adult".
> no -- it's entirely possible for nudity not to be sexual, it's possible
> for sexually explicit material not to be objectifying...I've said both
> these things in previous posts...and I definetly thing the nudity=sex
> thing in society has helped screw things up, but that's a totally
> different topic for sure :)
So why is this all of a sudden a different topic? All of the
URLs that were sent to the list contained women in bathing
suites or semi nudes and from there it takes an actual viewer
of the picture to come from nudity to sex. Without the viewer
it's just nudity. Or am I wrong?
Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> You are claiming that men are inherently sexist pigs, but can be
> trained not to be.
>
> I am claiming that this is false, and that men are sexist pigs BECAUSE
> they are trained to be.
This can be proven easily by comparing different cultures.
Nejc
PS: are there any nude beaches in the USA? According to general
puritanism (which I think is hypocrisy) I suppose they must be
banned.
--
''Share and Enjoy.''
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
