On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this moves beyond just one organization. As a "concerned feminist" > who "lives in America" the idea of calling the women who support the > referendum, aren't into bad porn on Commons, and tacky use of sexualized > images on articles as "educational" when they really aren't, "sexually > impaired" - is beyond sexist. Unless, perhaps, I'm mis-understanding your > post.
I am feminist as well and contrary to my previous examples -- which were male-exclusive -- I intentionally gave example of one female organization. I see no problem in being sarcastic toward any gender while it is consistent. > Voices are being heard who are against tacky bad sexualized images. The > group of people who support this "Commons is the dump of the sum of crappy > free photos for the world" way of thinking might be the loudest, but they > are the smallest in numbers, when it comes to English landscapes, from my > understanding. If people want to bombard us with more sexualized images, > we'll just keep fighting back. I can pay for my porn, I don't need it on > Commons. We don't talk here about crappy images, but about *any* image which depicts nude body or sexual act for *educational* purposes. > The majority of the women (and men) who participate in this anti-sexualized > environment are generally liberal left-wing political individuals. Many are > pro-sex and embrace liberal sexual lifestyles or are open minded to what > other people do in their bedrooms. Some don't even live in America. I think > you need to rethink your statements before you go around accusing > supporters, including women, of this referendum as sexually dysfunctional > conservatives. Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l