Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote:
> >
> > 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.
Your militant stand seems to stand on your way of clear sight.
Please don't take this as offense. You are evidently not
overexaggerating but rather seeing evil in a suggestion that
was not offered as good one or the right one or any ultimate
solution.
More about it in reply to Ingrid.
> > 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
You didn't give me even one.
> 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.
What is dyke? IIRC it is a word for a lesbian? It's hard
to discuss colloqial connotations of words in slang of a
foreign language.
> > 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)
Dunno; I haven't seen this on any list I am on. If I was,
I'd unsubscribe, or, if the list would suit me really well
otherwise, propose that list needs a moderator.
There was one notable exception to this, however; on one
of the Linux-related lists some idiot was asking whether
there will be women and liquor available on InstallFest.
After three such posts people got angry (mostly men,
women ignored him) and he was warned. He has been quiet
since.
> > 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.
I was talking about the same thing only in opposite
direction. Female to male. Got it? It IS rare, at least
according to my experience and that was what I was
talking about. Read it all before you complain.
Re: guy on bus: raising a voice in public shows that such
idiots often are also incredible cowards.
> > 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?
>
> [...]
>
> *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.
I know what you mean, but how many people know nowadays
that swastika used to be a symbol of sun, and how many
people know that direction of "rotation" is different?
But you are mixing apples and oranges anyway. Symbols
have been abused countless times in history since they
are a little bit more abstract than pictures of scantily
clad women. Aren't they?
Just for a speculation, cross used to be symbol of
penetration in some cultures. Did you know that?
> *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.
The premise about such pictures "marking male territory"
is yours not mine. Where did you get it from?
Also I don't see much difference between someone's home and
public display. If it was disrespectful it would have been
in either case, no difference here.
> > 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 :) )
IIRC it was US/Canada border (or some airport on the way,
I don't know). Search PC Magazine about it if you want to
know more.
I was not _blaming_ information society, not every remark
is blaming. I'm not as fast to blame someone/something as
you seem to be.
Of course the HD search is futile in time of global
networks. That was also the point besides stupidity of
the officer.
> > 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.
Generally it's inappropriate and I'd say because of the
(subconscious) historic influence of Catholic Church here,
not because of objectifying of models. (Most people do not
bother to think about it as deeply as you, which is pity).
But that's not the point. You are comparing a website that
not even has a company standing behind it with work
environment which is supposed to be at least a bit formal.
Workplace ethics has some Net-paralell in formal sites
like www.sun.com -- you won't find a pin-up there -- and
informal sites compare to informal atmosphere in some
garages where some mechanics indeed do have pin-ups on
walls. Don't compare apples to oranges.
> It's not appropriate because, as I said above, it's disrespectful. BTW, I
> think the whole chippendales thing is pretty disrespectful, too...
If you look on pin-ups as an objectification of human on the
picture it is indeed disrespectful. My point is not everyone
looks at it your way and you don't seem to be aware of that
fact.
If you can't accept that pin-ups can not be looked at as
objectification then please be honest and write down that
the subject is simply not debatable for you. Either give
some grounding or say it loud and clear that it is not
debatable for you. I'll accept it and respect it more
than clinging to the same unconvincing groundings. Maybe
you did tell it but I misunderstood you?
> > 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').
Same goes for me here.
> 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.
There are some women I respect very much and what they do
is just ignore stupid remarks, comments etc. In case of
lower salary they fight as I would, and in case of
touching they respond with a slap in the face which they
have a right to.
It is possible to deal with all this stupidities without
agonizing about it. There are stupidities above sexist
comments that can offend much more so don't come up with
me not knowing what I talk about because I'm not female.
> > 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?
Where is the offense?
I was said such things to my face that people kill for. If
you want to offend me you will have to try harder.
Clearly I would be guilty of offense if I let it offend me.
It would be _me_ who would *let* it offend _me_, right?
> > 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.
People that are most eager to change everything usually
never question what's wrong with their idea that drives
them to change the environment. If you let me to
demonstrate the principle in your case, you consider
pictures of scantily clad women objectifying women and
thus want to eliminate them from public places which are
not marked "adult". What you fail to see is that such
pictures are not necessarilly objectifying and therefore
not necessarily disprespectful. Was I clear enough?
> So what exactly do you mean by 'reformers never start at themselves'?
See above.
> > bothers you you won't be bothered any more.
>
> um...what?
If you find the cause of something bothering you
(objectivisation of human being) you have much more chance
to comprehend that not all pictures are objectifying and
at the end that it it _the_viewer_ that objectifies them.
Save yourself a pain and recognize your point of view and
its consequences.
It is you objectifying/seing objectified women in pictures
and not me.
Models who pose nude do so because of (a) lust (not very
convincing cause) (b) money (c) fame.
Mostly I think it's the fame and the money. Playboy's
'playmates' (a playmate is some kind of model of the month)
have some kind of a celebrity status among teenager boys
(and some eternal teenagers :-) ).
> > 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?
I'm not saying that sexism is not present here; obviously
there's less of it than it seems to be in the USA according
to posts on this lists. It seems to be pervasive in all
Western cultures, though.
> > 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 :)
Question is, why people liking pictures of scantily clad
women are considered fair game for bashing and SF readers
are not. Because it's disrespectful, you'll say. But again
it's only your aspect of it. Don't push it to everyone.
> > Is the slashdot guys' opinions about women-in-computing
> > matters something you care to read? Or even notice?
>
> yes.
If you want a hen to lay golden eggs you must also hear its
cackling. World is not perfect.
> > 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.
This makes their stupid comments not a bit more justified.
> > 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.
If you understand roots of something you may be able to
deal with it better. Mind you it was a speculation not a
grounded fact.
> 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
Yes, you definitely attract it. Noone else saw such a density
of scantily clad women on themes.org :-)
> > 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
Am I? What's the difference between such and album cover and
a picture of a scantily clad woman?
> 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 :)
I am enjoying the debate. You should too. It's just a debate
not hardwork of saving the world.
> > 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.
So which viewer is one of the loudest on this list? Vinnie! :-)
> > 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 :) )
Hypocrisy in American culture is an involution of the one
in European.
Nejc
--
''Share and Enjoy.''
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
