Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

God, never tell me I am a "moderate". In my personal life, I am quite conservative. But I have principles of freedom that prevent me from wanting to impose my lifestyle upon others. Really, the left/right axis of political thought is outdated. Call both sides "statists" or "totalitarians" and be done with it. I am much more concerned with their results than their motivations.

PLEASE- do not anyone supply the word - honestly, the very idea makes me want to run screaming- so guess what? i do not (beyond the one time when i stupidly wondered what it meant and googled it) ever put it in search in sl or the internet-

Well, here is one of the things we've learned about free speech in this thread:

A Klansman is a person who has the right to speak his opinion, no matter how unpopular. A feminist is a bitch who needs to shut her damn mouth.

Had to get that off my mind.

People, all people, are most sensitive to the issues that affect them the most on a daily basis. They understand those issues and prioritize them over others that affect them less continually.

Micheal Vick is just about to finish his sentence after about two years on charges relating to dog-fighting. At the time the story broke, the media seemed baffled by how so many white people seemed so concerned about the animals that they wanted Vick to be crucified immediately, while so many black people were concerned about Vick getting a fair trial and fair press.

It's not that so many white people don't care about due process of law, and so many black people don't care about animals. It's because, I think, people understand events by relating them to personal experience. My guess is that for a lot of white people, the first thing they thought of when they saw the Vick story was a beloved pet; and for a lot of black people, the first thing the thought of was the last time they were pulled over for "Driving While Black."

Yet, there was so much media and debate and argument over a false dichotomy. Protecting animals from cruelty and preserving due process for people are not mutually exclusive.

That is what I see here. The goal of preserving an environment that is not hostile to women generally, and preserving a place where people can freely express themselves, are not mutually exclusive.

I do not think that it is a self-authenticating fact that there is a "continued prevalence of representations of violence against women in Second Life." I believe I see far more representations of violence against women outside of Second Life than inside it. Now, I understand that my experience is not representative of everyone's; maybe I've missed the pervasive representations by chance. It may be that I am so desensitized to it that even though I see it, I just don't remember seeing it. I won't deny that it may exist; but asking to be shown before I accept it as fact is a fair question. And really, no one should accept anything as fact unless they can verify it.

I also doubt that everyone who participates in depicting violent sexual activity in Second Life doesn't care about the problem of violence against women. Now, some may not care to the extent that they just never thought about it (just like the population at large). Some may actually think such violence is okay (just like the population at large). Some may care, but because it is not an issue that affects them on a daily basis, they just do not think about every single consquence of everything they do in terms of how it affects societal attitudes toward women (just like the population at large). And some care a lot, and have thought carefully about how their activities affect women in general, and are satsified that they are not harming women by their activities (just like the population at large).

Many people who participate in BDSM are part of a community of BDSM practioners. Like just about every counter-culture community, they are used to being mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized by society at large. To many of them, facing that mariginalization is one of those issues that they face on a daily basis.

So when one mentions the idea of further restricting their activities because of the potential impact of those activities on violence against women, of course the first think they are going to think about is the issue they deal with most on a daily basis- their own marginalization by society. It's not that they don't care about violence against women; it's just that their own marginalization is at the tops of their minds.

Marginalization of a community or group of people is an issue that should be familiar to any feminist. Because the main problem which feminism addresses is marginalization of a group of people- women.

The ironic thing is that my guess is that the people who have been most vocal in supporting the right of free expression through violent sexual roleplay, and most critical of the original post, are probably the people who care the most about violence against women. It is the people who have taken the most effort to be respectful and sensitive who are going to become most upset when their individual efforts are dismissed in a broad generalization about the group with which they are associated.

My guess is also that many of the people who do run sims featuring violent sexual roleplay are quite willing to take efforts to keep their sims out of the eyes of those who want to avoid it. (And though I don't know personally, I have every reason to believe everyone who posted here that they have done the best to keep their sims out of casual sighting.) Even if some may believe their right to expression is absolute, they may still be willing to make the effort because they want to be nice, respectful people. And they may also make a point to improve community image by pressuring those in the community slow to respond.

However, for someone who has taken every effort to keep their sim away from being found accidentally, it must be frustrating when someone not only tells them they have failed, but doesn't provide examples or details of the failure so that they can fix it or make it better.

Ultimately, people are much more receptive to the idea of voluntarily not exercising a right for someone else's benefit, rather than being told they cannot exercise the right. Because at least if one chooses not to exercise the right, they still have the right. Finding mutual agreements isn't always possible, but it often is, and is always a perferable solution. People are always more likely to honor the agreements they voluntarily made, rather than the rules imposed upon them.

Chris: I didn't and wouldn't. I call myself a moderate and figure I'm further from either than they are from each other. That's all.

@ Amaranthim: *mumbles* too late...

What he said! Thank you Carl. This "protect the poor women" crap makes me apoplectic.

Huh? Were you being facetious?

Did you notice how many people posted opposing views to the OP who also term themselves feminists or sympathetic to 'feminist' or women's issues? NO one told either OP to "shut their...mouth." They just disagreed. Big difference.

You aren't seriously using Wikipedia as proof in an argument like this? Sure if you want the date of a battle or the name of a general's horse. But for issues of ethics, it is not a reliable source.

Crap -

Originally Posted by Melita Magic
*hopes this doesn't turn into a dolcett thread*


too late....

I wish people would stop using Wiki (or even the 'net as if it's conclusive) for all manner of internet discussions/debates. "Can you give a link?" should not be the line past which arguments become 'proven'.

Yup although you will notice there's no clue what that is, for the uninitiated. Unless JamesMichael hadn't read my post before he posted, his post right after mine is a small proof.

Amity was a bit upset when the question was asked if the two posters were connected.

In all that, you couldn't manage to give even one example in support of your claims that the OP assumes "we NEED you to TELL us what's wrong with Second Life" or that the OP feels "somehow annointed"......? [quotations from your post, to which I first replied in post 188.]

You couldn't come up with even one particle of support for your claims? Not one?

Apparently not. Instead, you went off on tangents (definitions of 'fact', 'opinion', etc.)

That's usually what people do when they realize that they cannot back up their claims--go off on a tangent and hope that no one notices.

Anyway, this is probably not worth any more pixels. Your 'Can't Find Any Way To Counter The Message So Will Attack the Messenger' post is only one of several.

Pretty good testimonial for the Message, really.

That is true, it is also geographically and socially dependent. Back in the 60s pornography was totally banned in the UK, and access to it was not easy at all. In the States, pornography was more prevalent in the 60s than in the UK (the first time I ever saw porno on open display in my life was when I visited California in the late 60s. It was the first time I ever saw a gun in my life too, but that is another thread entirely), so I am not surprised that brothels that catered to US servicemen had to provide services that would be unheard of in most UK establishments.

Rock

Posonby your post(s) to me read like a vitriolic rant. You are not likely to get me to capitulate to any wish you state, with that tactic.

"Can't" and "won't" are not the same thing, if the first sentence here is not plain enough. I did reply to your request before, as well - I said no. Lol.

(I also said those things were my opinion and my perception; yet you still want me to 'prove' them to you. Go to dictionary.com and look up the words opinion, and perception: otherwise, leave me alone.)

Orgies and kink have been around since the dawn of time, just like sex has been. Banning it is futile, just like prohibition was.

What an inane argument. Child sex and killing have also been around since the dawn of time, is banning them futile? Should we just give up and legalise them?

Sheesh!

Rock

To be fair, Rock, he didn't say those things should be legal, and it's a far jump *in my opinion* from a consensual kink to murder. Were you really wanting to put those things on level ground?

It's the typical "leap to the extremes" argument where all logic is ignored, similar to the "If we let gays marry, soon we'll have to let people marry dogs / furniture / blueberry pie, too."

Dammit, this pie and I have a loving relationship. I will marry her.......it if I want. Quit your food hate.

But orgies and kink are not banned, so what was the point of the post? But if the 'kink' is the mutilation, torture and killing of women (which this thread is about), then that should be banned. He was making the point that if something has been around since the dawn of time then banning it is futile, which it most certainly is not. And he was alluding to legalisation, with the reference to prohibition.

Rock

No, it's a good argument, as there is no killing or child sex in SL not even your avi is real, we're talking about censorship and kink prejudice, not real life.

Repeat this to yourself.

Second life is pretend. It is not real. No one really dies or is hurt.

In what way does "support you ranting all you want" = posting "Go away, please"......??

Or goats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm

Of course people don't want/respect/like them, they are trying to ban peoples sexualities.