On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote:
> Warning: a very long post indeed.
heh. I'm glad to know I'm not the only person prone to those :)
> I'm not sure if it has to be inviting to everyone. Nothing
Hmm..maybe inviting is the wrong word -- how about 'not hostile'?
(BTW, ingrid, I don't mean to put words in your mouth on this one..this is
my opinion, not ingrid's, everybody! :) )
i.e. a rock is neither inviting nor hostile -- a porcupine is hostile.
perhaps we would like to be more like a rock :)
> What about changing your nick?
First, I consider that response different from 'Well if you walk down a
street in a short skirt after dark aren't you asking for it?' only in
degree.
Second, did she ever mention what her nick was? Maybe she did and I didn't
see it...otherwise that was an interesting jump (I'm serious about that,
btw...I will totally overlook things like that from time to time :) )
> 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)?
ask a hundred people and you'll get a hundred answers
plus, I'm not adverse to 'taking back' words -- changing words that have
been used against one (like chick, or dyke [the latter being a rather
sucessful case of 'taking back' in my opinion]) into a more positive
force.
> clad" or nude or whatever. The amount of clothing is not really
> a suitable criterion.
I'll go for that :)
> There's room for anyone in this house of Earth...
I'd feel better if the 'youngsters' (<cough> I'm not going to go off about
the ageism issue again here) weren't overwhelmingly vocal -- by this I
don't mean that the majority of screen shots have porn/scantily clad
women/whatever -- but that the screenshots that do are a symptom of a
larger problem -- and symptoms of the same problem can be found in
comments on slashdot, on random other mailing lists (has anyone else
noticed the lack of flaming and lack of 'fag', 'bitch' etc comments on the
linuxchix lists? I have)
> 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.
Um. Ouch. How to I say this without seeming like I"m male bashing.
If I say 'most men don't seem to notice the constant objectification and
sexualization of women' someone will say I'm male-bashing. Conversely, on
most lists if I say 'most women don't understand how ahrd it is to be male
in this day and age' the chances of being accused of female-bashing are
low.
I think both are true.
It's not rare. This morning some jerk decided it was a good idea to hit
on me and try to feel up my leg on the bus from capital hill to downtown
seattle. It's not an every day thing, but I'd say I probably deal with a
*very* obvious and physical symptom of it at least once every two weeks or
so. I wouldn't consider that rare. And yes, the issues are related.
> 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.
Am I?
Hmm..how do I put this? (keeping in mind that I know this issue is sticky
and trying to find my way through it is often like trying to find my way
through an unfamiliar forest blindfolded)
*IF* there had never been nazis, *then* the schwastika would be a
perfectly okay thing to show (for the record it was originally a religious
symbol that got appropriated) with pride. All it is is a symbol. However,
it now has been imbued with meaning beyond it's self, hence, wearing one
would be inappropriate.
*IF* pin-ups/porn/girls in bathing suits (BTW, one of the examples I
posted was definetly *not* in a bathing suit) hadn't been used to 'mark
out' male territory -- and if there wasn't a problem with some males who
have real trouble getting through their heads that women are more than
things to enjoy sexually, and more, that women are actually thinking,
feeling *beings*, then random pics of girls/women in bathing suits (note
I'm not talking about in the privacy of your own home here, I'm talking
about fairly public display) ends up being rather disrespectful.
> 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.
First, presumably GF didn't mind, at least :) And second, I think it's
rather stupid that some idjit felt it necessary to search his hd..you can
blame the information society, but I'd be inclined to put the blame
elsewhere (not to mention -- if you wanted to 'smuggle porn' <- having no
idea of the porn laws where you are speaking of -- woudln't it be easier
to email it around :) )
> 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?
I dunno about where you live -- where I work, it really is considered
inappropriate to have pin up girl (or chippendale) calendars.
It's not appropriate because, as I said above, it's disrespectful. BTW, I
think the whole chippendales thing is pretty disrespectful, too...
> 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?
Well, I live in this world, I would like to live in a world where people
(in general) are seen as people and as worthy of respect because they are
people (btw, I mean real, basic respect, not that simpering worship that
gets passed off as 'respect').
What is it in *me*? How about: I am female. I deal with assholish comments
about it on a regular basis. I deal with idiots who think a female without
male escort is 'fair game' entirely too often. I deal with people (male
and female) who make stupid comments about how girls/women shoudln't
be/aren't good at math/science/computers, all the time. I live in a world
where the idea that one might not want to wear make up, refuse to wear
dresses, not really care what one's weight is is grounds for behaviors
from ridicule to hospitalization.
> 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.
The thing that I don't get is that no one who is arguing that gratuitous
inclusion of pictures of scantily clad women (or whatever..I'm going coin
a term soon, if this debate keeps up :) ) said *ANYTHING* about banning
this behavior...somehow being critical of this behavior is being against
freedom of speech (which by the way, I'm the idiot who can make a really
good case for the legalization of child porn, so I don't think you're
going to find me much for limiting other speech :P ), but being critical
to the point of accusing the original criticizers of censorship (where?)
is not?
I'm going to assume that it was a knee jerk reaction to having had a few
too many govermental attemptings at internet censorship (I'm pretty bad at
the knee jerk reactions myself..in fact, I've had exactly that reaction a
few times)
> 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.
Okay. All men should be killed, because they are all useless, slimy pigs!
And you're the worst.
Now who is guilty of the offense?
> Reformers never start at themselves. Once you find out what
That's an interesting statement. I would point out that, while hypocrisy
is a problem everywhere, in my experience folks who are against animal
cruelty generally don't torture animals, folks who push others to be
vegetarian generally don't eat meat themselves, I do do my best not to be
too harsh on guys and I work pretty hard at not saying ageist crap.
So what exactly do you mean by 'reformers never start at themselves'?
> bothers you you won't be bothered any more.
um...what?
Yeah, maybe if the problem is simply that you're so embarrased by the
nudie in a magazine, but that's *not* the problem here, it's not even
inthe same magnitude...
> 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.
Um. what country do you live in? And can I move there?
Being *female* causes (for some definition of cause that isn't exactly
causitive) those reactions -- trust me..I look like someone crossed a
troll and a billy goat, and I still have problems.
> Be honest: are you as appalingly annoyed when you find a music
> background/theme filed in, say, SF area?
If people who read SF were considered 'fair game' for bashing in the linux
community, I probably would be :)
> Keep on! Your lungs will appreciate. Your bank account too.
Yeah, so I keep telling myself...actually, I can taste things again, but
damn, my temper is short still...(usually I"m a really patient
person...apparently not while in nicotine withdrawal...I feel more like
'vinnie on a rampage' today :)
> Is the slashdot guys' opinions about women-in-computing
> matters something you care to read? Or even notice?
yes.
> 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.
Well, to my knowledge they are a fairly good cross section of linux users.
And geeks in general.
> Yeah. It's just as accepted as men-bashing in extreme feminist
heh. The funny thing I've noticed is that the farther you get from the
center, the less male-bashing is okay...
the other funny thing I've noticed is that the definition of male bashing
and the definition of female bashing are very very different...
> 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.
That may be true, but I'm not sure why it would matter when relating to
the large majority of the world with which you (and I) will *not* be
having sex.
> Mybe you just attract them ... :-)
well, I have been known to comment that I have 'freak' written across my
forehead -- I just can't see it..I do attract freaks..but screenshots
aren't exactly like people, they don't show up of their own accord :)
Seriously, the first time I noticed the problem was when I went to look at
a particular theme someone had emailed me about (not being much of a theme
person I just hadn't gotten around to looking, previously) and two of the
top five themes had gratuitous net.porn in them, one was roughly 'adult'
(it was debateable, but the theme itself had a scantily clad woman in the
background <shrug>) and the other two weren't particularly memorable
> Do laws of probability affect their own validity? :-)
<g> I was joking.
> By the way, does it also offend you when a female singer
> decides to pose in underwear for the CD album cover?
you're still approaching it from the wrong angle
and some of that is my fault, because I can't explain it right now without
going into full blown panic mode...and I'm not going to start smoking
again over an email debate :)
> 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".
Don't ask me, I didn't make up the term :)
> of the picture to come from nudity to sex. Without the viewer
> it's just nudity. Or am I wrong?
Without the viewer it wouldn't be a problem.
> PS: are there any nude beaches in the USA? According to general
> puritanism (which I think is hypocrisy) I suppose they must be
> banned.
I think there are...
there *were* a few years ago
(and you are right about the hypocrisy -- american culture can't handle
nudity, but sexualizes children, objectifies everyone and then wonders why
we're all so screwed up :) )
Vinnie
--
Reality is a formality, an agreed upon set of lies -- J.D. Catron
Obligatory pathetic website at http://george.he.net/~drachen
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
