On 14/09/2011 18:25, Sydney Poore wrote: > We often need to rewrite text to make it less like an investigative > report, a salacious tabloid story, or a company press release.
One of the reasons I insist so much on positive rules is that I fear there might be a perverse use of negative rules, which would paradoxically bring sexuality back to the menu. For example, it is alright to have rules against groping in the subway, but I think a woman who would walk in the subway with a large signpost saying "Don't grope me" would perhaps be ambiguous. I think that on clothes articles there might easily be a lot of prudes saying "That's too short" or something like that, who even if they don't want to might bring unease. I don't have very good examples in mind, but maybe user Valorum27 fits the description here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sleeveless_shirt#Is_this_necessary.3F He is alone in this example but if there were more, it would bring back sexual focus. A better example is this, which personally I find pathetic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skirt#Sexist And it's the user who didn't want female content who started it, albeit with good intentions certainly. I imagine that if on the contrary you'd let viewers look away without mentioning decency, it would be much better, and more proper to focus on the clothe. Arnaud _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
