in re: video - addressing the video issue alone - i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia "i don't like it" = merely decorative
better to argue: that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism; that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding; that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original to you) keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is "5. worship of the written word" so it is a frequent "content dispute" masking ideology. On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Marie Earley <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one > (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway.... > > Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward > > ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? > > In particular this comment: > "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, > *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this > group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or > less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...." > > I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. > It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work > is the opposite of feminism? > Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a > subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. > > On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of > feminist > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 > and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to > organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", > "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the > list > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727 > > The list has recently been changed to this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a > couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. > > I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, > and similar work: > Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works > to this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works > > Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist > Economics > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics > and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability > Association > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association > then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the > HDCA. > Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar > (births). > > These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds > of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). > The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no > problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or > "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly > support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and > homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human > development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality > / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' > (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this > area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender > Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: > http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ > (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on > WP then there would be no Pornography Project). > > Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs > (a) Pro-sex work > (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and > (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV > that dare not speak its name > ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table. > > I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all > about the separation between (b) and (c) > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190 > <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv> > It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little > sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that > it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational > value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures > and videos often are? > > As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob > can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, > obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by > editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, > who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to > do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as > well. > > It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate > to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the > term is used by both (a) and (c), > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're > not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - > and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is > (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) > and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the > article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is > just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to > group (a) than any other group of feminists'. > > This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think > that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware > or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are > talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not > co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki. > > Marie > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
