Warning: -horribly- long post though I've tried to snip sections.
I've been reading the entire thread but have been too busy to get
involved, much as I would have liked to, until now. For the record,
I am in agreement with those who see this as more an issue of context
than content. I have no problems with the idea of pictures of women
with few clothes on, or none, or in positions which to some (all?)
people are provocative, as a general category. To me, it's not the
pictures, it's where they're found and the associations they carry
in that area.
I don't object to the pictures that come up (or would if I
weren't using Lynx) if I click links off www.naughty.com or
www.eroticstories.com. Because in the context of that, they're
expected, and they're what people clicking those links are
expecting to get. I would object if I went to a site which
was purportedly about how to make a theme or use a graphical
app and all the pictures were of scantily-clad women, because
they're not necessary there, and they send the same "if you
don't like this you'll have to put up with it" signals that
some people say they find as women in generally male job.
Similarly, icons like that for the irc client BitchX (woman in a
bikini with a BitchX label) annoy me, because I think it's not a
clever pun but vaguely offensive; and it only makes sense if you
know what the program does. It's not exactly saying "irc program",
is it? It's just a gratuitous female image to no point.
Anyway, that said,
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 12:58:51AM +0200 or thereabouts, Jernej Zajc wrote:
> Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote:
> > >
> > > What about changing your nick?
> >
> > First, I consider that response different from 'Well if you walk down a
> > street in a short skirt after dark aren't you asking for it?' only in
> > degree.
>
> Your militant stand seems to stand on your way of clear sight.
I realise that you're not writing in your first language, but I have
to say that you're not coming across too well here. You're coming
across as abrupt, not inclined to listen to what people are saying,
assuming a bit too much about them, and more interested in telling
other people what you think than listening to what they think.
I don't see anything militant in Vinnie's assessment, and as
Alice said earlier, why should I have to change my name? It's
my name, dammit.
[chick]
> > ask a hundred people and you'll get a hundred answers
> You didn't give me even one.
'chick' means so many different things. Actually, to me (living
in Wales), it sounds American, and I associate it with, hm.. the
world as portrayed in "Grease", perhaps? That time period, and
(young) men discussing women.
[flaming and abusive language on lists]
> Dunno; I haven't seen this on any list I am on. If I was,
> I'd unsubscribe, or, if the list would suit me really well
> otherwise, propose that list needs a moderator.
I think Vinnie's right. As mailing lists go, this has been
a very civilised and stimulating one so far.
[from symbols to the symbolism of pictures]
> The premise about such pictures "marking male territory"
> is yours not mine. Where did you get it from?
There are some work environments in which girlie pictures on the
wall are more common. You mention later the situation of seering
girlie pics in garages, which are here (UK) still mostly a male
business. I think this one, in fact, is so common that it was
used as a base in one of the X-files episodes? (People going mad
and killing others, after paranoid attacks? "All done, bye bye"
at the end.) That episode wouldn't have worked nearly so well if
the initial environments (a production line, a queue for the
cashpoint, taking your car for a service) hadn't been easily
recognisable to viewers. Garage. Girlie pics. Intimidating in
some vague way. (Okay, it gets more graphic in the episode, but..)
> Also I don't see much difference between someone's home and
> public display. If it was disrespectful it would have been
> in either case, no difference here.
Ah. Here I disagree, and again, I think it's the issue of context
rather than content. What people choose to decorate their walls
and computer screens with at home is their business. What people
put up in their work environment or a place shared by other people
is, to me, different. Whether the image is disrespectful is a
matter of taste. If, knowing that others may find it so, someone
puts a picture like that on a screenshot that other people at
work can see, -that-, to me, is the disrespect: deciding that
your opinion of it outweighs their opinion of it.
> But that's not the point. You are comparing a website that
> not even has a company standing behind it with work
> environment which is supposed to be at least a bit formal.
> Workplace ethics has some Net-paralell in formal sites
> like www.sun.com -- you won't find a pin-up there -- and
> informal sites compare to informal atmosphere in some
> garages where some mechanics indeed do have pin-ups on
> walls. Don't compare apples to oranges.
I think it's a reasonable comparison. Again, the garage. Whether
it should be or not, it is intimidating to some women to try to
interact with the mechanic working on a car when there is a pinup
on the wall. It's not as if the garage or its office is a private
place where other people don't see it. If they have customers,
the customers are going to see it. themes.org is not some small
little-used site. On the net as a whole, maybe, but I doubt
there's a Gnome, KDE, windowmaker, or fvwm user who hasn't at
least heard of it.
I commonly see themes.org (poor old themes.org, it's being used
like it's the only example) held up as an example of a community
site, and to many people, Linux is very much a community-backed
OS. If you look at introductions to the desktop environments in
particular, you'll often find "And if you don't like the themes
that came with it, you can go to themes.org and find a nicer one".
(The three most recently added to wm.themes.org, btw, are Linuxchick
Plain, Linuxchick 22 and Girls, and they're such good examples of
what some people here are criticising that I have to wonder at
their timing. It's almost like a visual troll :) They arrived last
night. Just in case s/he's reading this, I'll say hello to the author
and thank them for the option to df that they used on their terminal,
because I didn't know that one and it's nice and human-readable :))
> If you look on pin-ups as an objectification of human on the
> picture it is indeed disrespectful. My point is not everyone
> looks at it your way and you don't seem to be aware of that
> fact.
I've read as much of Vinnie's public postings as you have, and I
don't have that impression of her at all. I think you're
misunderstanding her.
> It is possible to deal with all this stupidities without
> agonizing about it. There are stupidities above sexist
> comments that can offend much more so don't come up with
> me not knowing what I talk about because I'm not female.
I don't think analysing something is the same as agonising. Would
you apply "agonising" to someone else's (Jenn V?) summary of
what it was that irked her, neatly separated into points? You
need to analyse what's going on around you and inside you: and
self-evaluation doesn't have to be agonising. Vinnie gave a
good summary, I thought.
[offence in eye of the offended?]
> Clearly I would be guilty of offense if I let it offend me.
> It would be _me_ who would *let* it offend _me_, right?
For you. But if you were to start extrapolating and telling
me that I should not be offended when kids shout "one-eye" at
me in the street (I have an eye problem), then this becomes
problematic. I -will- take offence at the kids, and at the parents
who don't stop their little bundles of joy from behaving so.
Because I don't believe that the ideals of freedom of speech
really should extend to regarding catcalls in the street as
appropriate and normal behaviour.
> pictures of scantily clad women objectifying women and
> thus want to eliminate them from public places which are
> not marked "adult". What you fail to see is that such
> pictures are not necessarilly objectifying and therefore
> not necessarily disprespectful. Was I clear enough?
Clear in what you're saying, but I think it's flawed. To some people,
some groups, and some religions, some (or all) of the pictures
-are- objectification. Most people here, though, including the
original poster, seem to be saying that it's not the pictures,
it's where they are found. I don't think Vinnie fails to see that
point at all, btw; I know I can see it.
And to other people (like me), the objectification tends to come
in where the picture is being used to advertise something such
as a car. Odd, I know, but I think I am happier about pictures
just of the woman than I am about the car with a woman draped
over the bonnet with a logo saying "Drive me", or something.
> > > Is the slashdot guys' opinions about women-in-computing
> > > matters something you care to read? Or even notice?
> >
> > yes.
...especially because Slashdot is portrayed these days as a
"must-read" community site (in the 'useful resources' sections
of many 'introduction to Linux' articles, for example). If that
were my first exposure to the much-vaunted Linux community, I'd
be appalled, especially since the default common threshold level
is quite low, where you find a lot of the more unpleasant stuff.
> > person I just hadn't gotten around to looking, previously) and two of the
> > top five themes had gratuitous net.porn in them, one was roughly 'adult'
> > (it was debateable, but the theme itself had a scantily clad woman in the
> > background <shrug>) and the other two weren't particularly memorable
>
> Yes, you definitely attract it. Noone else saw such a density
> of scantily clad women on themes.org :-)
It varies. If you look at wm.themes.org, for example, and look
at the three newest as of this very moment:
http://wm.themes.org/php/pic.phtml?src=themes/wm/shots/940627550.jpg
http://wm.themes.org/php/pic.phtml?src=themes/wm/shots/940627347.jpg
http://wm.themes.org/php/pic.phtml?src=themes/wm/shots/940627706.jpg
...you will find plenty of scantily-clad women, and two of them
have "You want me" as the maxim next to them. Doubtless, it's
meant to be applied to the Linux logo and not the girl. Yes. Of
course. Sure... So right now, of the top ten newest on there,
three are the sort that triggered this whole debate.
As I say, I do find the timing of those and this discussion a
little remarkable :)
(Btw: someone said that themes.org has an adult section. The adult
section of wm.themes.org vanished in the summer, unless it has
resurfaced elsewhere. I don't see it at all.)
Quick repaste of Vinnie's comment:
> > two of the top five themes had gratuitous net.porn in them...
I don't know how Vinnie regarded it, but to me, the operative word
in that sentence is "gratuitous".
As I said, if you upload a screenshot of your new app, and it's got
these images in it, and they're extraneous to displaying the exciting
new app, then you will find that some people will conclude that either
you are not thinking about what other people will think; or that you
know that some people may find it offensive and you just don't care.
Neither scenario will encourage people to try out your app.
And likewise with BitchX. There's a variety of icons used for
it, but the girl with a big bust and BitchX written over it is
the one I see most often. Because I don't always use X, I still
use ircii for IRC, but even if I wanted a glorious technicolour
irc experience (ahem), and even though I have several themes with
naked(ish) women in them, I would not use BitchX. Because of that
icon and its label. A picture of a woman in a bikini seems like a
cheap pun on the name of the program (and an unpleasant one, in my
view), rather than an explanation of what the program does. To me,
(though not to everyone, judging by how often I see it on screenshots)
that's gratuitous.
It's like with the cars adverts. I don't object to pictures of
people with not many clothes on, especially in a context where
you're expecting such things. But I don't like them being used
gratuitously to sell or promote something else. And the
association of the name "Bitch" with a picture of a girl is to
me far from a clever visual pun but at rather best a tiresome one
and at worse offensive. I can't believe that the users and originator
of that icon aren't well aware that it might be taken like that when
they use it.
Telsa, making up from previous silence with a little too much in
the opposite direction.
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
