On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 17:30, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:54, Sarah Stierch <[email protected]> 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. > > Thanks to Fred, I've realized that it seems that you misread my email. > My sarcastic example related to particular organization, not to > "concerned women/feminists from America". The organization is called > "Concerned Women for America" [1]. They started the whole drama in > 2008 [2].
And to be more precise: I can't have a position about your position if I don't know it; thus I can't be sarcastic toward your position. However, the position of the Concerned Women for America is well described and I can be sarcastic about it. That doesn't include just their position toward sexually explicit content. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
