> > * I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn > culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this > issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion > over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not > the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices > of women who disagree with your focus. > *
+1 And for what its worth, WWC girls have no problem discussing sex, porn or male genitalia (we did spend more than 20 min laughing about the lies that europeans tell in studies like the one who originate this: http://alphadesigner.com/blog/europe-according-penis-size/ (which clearly states that French and Hungarians like to tell big fat lies ;) ) and the people who can peform autocoitus. So isn't that big of a issue. (and the map also shows that :-D ) _____ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* On 31 May 2012 22:35, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to >>> pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in >>> particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women >>> editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive >>> discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect. >>> >>> This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, >>> members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of >>> pornography. >>> >>> Risker/Anne >> >> >> >> Anne, >> >> It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have >> established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women >> generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it >> out. >> >> The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out >> there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an >> opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to >> women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed >> on. >> >> Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most >> pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It >> also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites. >> >> I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are >> closely related: you are welcome to disagree. >> >> >> > I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer > not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't > discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that > pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to > the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a > good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I > suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn > culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this > issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion > over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not > the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices > of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit. > > Risker/Anne > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
