I wanted to ask a question to the members of the list- Is all pornography inherently bad, against women, perhaps, Anti-feminist but does it degrade women just by its sheer existence? Are there women who either a) don't have strong opinions on it b) are supportive of some form of it.
For the record, Most forms of nudity, erotica, paintings, books, even video games, are capable of being classified as pornographic. On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Laura Hale <la...@fanhistory.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman <kim.os...@qut.edu.au> wrote: > >> My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of >> addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at >> times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of >> pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the >> clubhouse walls >> > > Hi, > > I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing > Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on > Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it > when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. > Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, > youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where > pornography is very prevalent? I agree with Laura. Even in pornography related articles, I've rarely seen discussion that was characteristic of a "Boy's club" while degrading or objectifying women in any shape or form. The impression here might be, that its all teenagers working on their fantasies in not as-visible pages, but that is hardly the case. They are few active editors that only edit a single topic or interact with one subset of the ecosystem; the idea that they constantly mask and carry around their hateful misogynistic tendencies, to only let loose on pornography articles, is just plain wrong. Pornography has always had 3 critics - Law, religion and feminism. In this age, coloring all 3 with the same generalized brush-stroke would be mistake; opinions mature and change over time, tolerance increases in all 3 forms. Law had it's problem with pornography, mostly descended from century old common law, until people started realizing they don't have to be bound by morality of old dead white men, from 300 years ago and they could decide for themselves. The same law in its vague interpretation outlawed homosexuality and the existence of homosexuals, in half of the world, and it still does. Religion had its problem with pornography but then we came out of the dark ages, art, even iconic religious art flirted with the boundaries of morality. The renaissance happened, with an explosion of culture and light and beauty, would Michelangelo's David have been pornographic in its age? or does it speak to more tolerance than what you might find even today. Would it have mattered if it was Aphrodite or The birth of Venus being ridiculed today. Adherence to certain practices, decreased and cultural tolerance increased - We just seem to be moving back in some cases. Then, the feminist movement, once all pornography was characterized as harmful and objectification of women, until there were dissenting voices, the sex-positive feminist movement for example. I once heard a plausible argument about the role pornography played in the sexual revolution for women that led to Women's lib in the US. I've also heard that the strongest critics within the feminist movement, would be equally if not more critical of censorship, which, incidentally is suggested on this list often as a solution. Regards Theo
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
