Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

I'm just not seeing Talking Down and Lecture-Not-Discussion.

The OP hangs on this: "In this context, I have a question about the continued prevalence of representations of violence against women in Second Life."

How is "I have a question" equivalent to Talking Down and Lecturing?

Sure, the thread originator makes statements in various posts.

But....you yourself made statements in the post to which I reply. We all say 'there is _____in _______and we wouldn't put up with ______' and the like....and sure, you can take every clause and demand that it be hedged about with "I think", "it seems possible", and "there might be a case to be made for...."

But how many of us avoid all definite statements and use the hedging for each and every thing we say?

Is failure to hedge every single statement equivalent to Talking Down and Lecturing??






Let me answer my own question: of course not. No one of us holds him or herself to such a standard, and for the most part we don't hold others to such a standard, either.

Is the exception---the time we get up on our hind legs in righteous indignation at being Lectured---when someone posts on a topic that....makes us uncomfortable?

ALT's sprang to mind

Posonby - Lol. Yes, I did answer the questions I saw fit to answer. Which were not really questions, unless passive-aggressively so. They were statements. "Read it again and you will see that it is so"? So, you know my own mind better than I do? How do you know what I will see, or understand, or not see or understand from your post? *sighs* And how will I know that I've understood it correctly?

See how tricky this 'communication' thing can be? /sarcasm

Sorry but when annoyed I do sometimes resort to sarcasm.

Now to RE address your post, since you insist I did not do so adequately the first time:

You state what you do not detect. What am I supposed to say to that? You don't see what I see. Fine. I can accept that.



Okay, fine, fair enough.



Yes, they are. And thank you so much for allowing me my own perceptions. (Or, before you pick that apart - to state them.)



Well, that is YOUR perception. I replied by in fact agreeing that they are perceptions and opinions. I thought that addressed your post quite well enough - you disagreed in your follow-up reply (this is already like a tennis game).

In fact, this (quoted below) is the only part I did NOT address. Why? Because since when MUST I address or reply to everything someone demands - simply because they demanded it?



Wonderful.

No.

I'm not about to rehash and reiterate every blessed point she made that I took issue with, this thread is long enough. You've stated emphatically that you do not agree with my perceptions. What point, what possible point, is there in arguing perceptions?

Much as I hate to provide any support, even implied, to the OP, this idea that "in public" means "Linden land only" is nonsense. Private property that's by intent open to the public is considered "in public" for the good reason that any member of "the public" could be there, and can be expected to be there.

I'm not arguing that any person's ideas of what "should be" excluded from public view are valid, mind you. That's a different kettle of spam.

Argent I'm still wondering how often she's run into a rape scenario in full blossom in some park or shopping mall, i.e. a sim that was not clearly designated as a certain type of roleplay sim. Or a certain type of shopping mall, for that matter.

They're masking the issue by claiming they are 'expected' to see it or that they run into it. If they have something to back up that claim I'd like to hear it. So far nothing.

In fact if they've found a (clearly labeled/designated force roleplay) sim in which people are in practise rather than on paper, doing much more than standing around staring at each other, I'd be surprised. (I know there are a few; but my point is that most such sims are like zombie-land, or empty. Point is that it - actual out in the open force roleplay rather than lack of it - isn't nearly as prevalent or easy to 'stumble over' as they claim.)

I'm still struck that they think they are not for censorship!

The Swastika was around long before the nazi's 3.000 years in fact and Buddhists and Hindu's still use it, I wonder how LL would react if these people used their religious symbol within SL

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm

Hmm- so the OP has come to this 'Community' and posed a sort of question/lecture/discussion/opinion/diatribe/censure ...

Seems the majority, with maybe one dissent, has clearly spoken against the OP's ideas, thoughts, program, agenda, concepts- consensus- appears to be 'live and let live and mind your own damn business' -

Did I miss something over the last five droning pages of the same thing? OP says 'do as i say' people say - 'no', OP is outed for having an agenda - we all adjust our tin foil and can now merrily go back to our lives that were minimally disrupted by this idiocy? Is that about it?

Want to make sure i didn't actually miss anything here... thank you - ignoring rest - night all


Oh, do keep eye out for rehash then in upcoming threads- so we can just point future OP's to this same thread and we can all sleep thru the nonsense.

I"m not saying that it's happened. I'm not saying that their expectations are reasonable. I'm just saying that "in public" means more than "on public Linden owned land".

Argent - I understood your post perfectly. I was just asking my own question.

I'm not sure whether public land means one thing or another. Perhaps more pertinent to figuring out what she/they are really trying to claim, or to do, is how the OP meant 'public' - which I haven't noticed she's answered.

My point was basically, in that post, that THAT whole part of her speech was a mask, anyway. They're not shocked because they ran across it by accident. They're not only trying to ban it from 'public places'. They want to ban it altogether. The rest is a mask and/or meaningless rhetoric (like I pointed out in a prior post addressing some of her terminology).

Amaranthim - yeh I hope so too. Not gonna get a straight answer out of them anyway on half of this stuff. They want a complete ban, yet somehow claim they are 'inclusive' and against censorship. Why have I even tried to discuss with someone who's either that dishonest or that self-deluded. Sorry, OPs in both threads; I'm sure you are wonderful people but your debate style is baffling.

I'm another of the "credentialed" feminists...and I thought we'd jettisoned this idiotic censorship crap about 20 years ago. I've never been actually hurt by an image of ANYTHING. Sorry, but you need to upgrade your outrage. I have some suggestions. Just ask.

What troubles me are that precisely the same arguements, both for and against, were used in the debate on ageplay before it was banned.

What exactly is the difference when two guys meet up in SL, and one pretends to be a child avie while the other has sex with 'her', or when one pretends to be a woman and the other rapes, mutilates, tortures, and kills her?

As I understood it at the time (of the ageplay debate), is that although both are reprehensible crimes in RL, and notwithstanding that no-one is actually getting hurt in SL, do we really want people who get off on that sort of thing in SL?

The press really went to town on SL with the salacious stories on SL being a haven for paedophiles, and SL took action (too late IMHO), and banned it. However that mud still sticks.

Mark Kindon is trying to 'clean up' somewhat in SL (although I do not think the measures wil work), but if the press cannot find any ageplay in SL they will turn (when they have no other stories to fill a few inches of column space) to depictions of graphical torture that is condoned, and even supported in SL. This coming on the high profile trial of soldiers in Iraq that did all this and more to a 14 year old girl, before killing her, setting her body on fire, and killing her parents and 6 year old sister.

As far as I am concerned, people who surround themselves with pornography depicting paedophilia are just one step back in obnoxiousness to the people who actively engage in it (and I think quite rightly the possession of such material is now banned in most countries, and severe penalties await those found in possession of it).

Similarly, people who surround themselves with pornography (both the posed type, and the pixel simulated variety) depicting the rape, torture, mutilation and murder of women are just one step back in obnoxiousness to the people who actively engage in it (and I think the possession of such material should be banned in most countries, and severe penalties should await those found in possession of it).

Rock

I wonder if going on marches, and volunteering for rape crisis charities, donating and spending time helping out with domestic violence shelters, and crisis nurseries, is good enough for both OPs in both threads?

But don't you know, the reason we didn't swallow this (OP's battle plan) wholesale is because we are all so unfamiliar with the topic that it "makes us uncomfortable."

Common shared groups. Both have the feministnetwork.blogspot.com in their profiles and several other similar nuances that would lead me to believe they are one of the same person. But I could be wrong of course

Scylla Rhiadra NPIOF

Amnesty International-E
Minerva Guests
Shakespeare Sister
SL Left Unity


The Other Poster PIU

Amnesty International-E
Minerva Guests
Shakespeare Sister
SL Left Unity

The blog is very enlightening talking about such things as AR'ing BDSM animations etc.

Go Figure eh Left wing Feminists who need educating with the clue stick, although I may get AR'd for suggesting the clue stick lmao

Oppressor!

Right...I've done all that, and have a degree (among others) in Women's Studies too LOL. And am a crazy leftist-brand feminist. Still the OP needs a bit of schooling in real world feminism methinks.

Oh! (just read the last post by Lord) many of my very active feminist friends are also BDSM gals. Wonder how annoyed the OP would be at that.

LOL me bad, but I do like to have a look at peoples backgrounds especially the ones that are shouting loud One should always put ones cards on the table in debates and the blog makes interesting reading.

I agree with women having the right to stand up for their rights, women have died in the past for the right to be equal, but I will still open a door for a lady and yes she does need some lessons lol

Reading the blog the OP is so dead against BDSM and GOR, its well worth a read just to see how others percieve us BDSM folks lol

I haven't read the blog but that's just crazy. Many women have gotten a great sense of empowerment out of the BDSM world. I know many in RL. Strong women all.

I thought the cartel here was all about free speech? I guess free speech for some of you only applies when it's on your terms. Some people have engaged in a discussion others have simply got together in a pack and attemped to silence and intimidate.

The paranoia levels are also just astonishing. Should we employ Mulder and Scully to find out more about this powerful underground network of crack feminazi's in their 'secret cabal' (must get a t-shirt with that logo) daring to challenge rape porn. If we were starting a campaign to take over the world we certainly wouldn't begin by using internet forums, dominated as they are by..erm.. strong personalities.

Really, posting information about our profiles is stalkerish, freaky and un-necessary. I posted here because I had a question to ask, Scylla posted because she was interested in exploring people's opinions. If we had known it was THE LAW that two people from the same group couldn't post we would certainly have taken that into consideration along with all the other useful guidelines that have been suggested.

BTW, the network group was closed because people joined specifically to get information and were harassing members.

"You have to be a pretty poor excuse for a feminist if you expend grassroots organizing energy on purging all depictions of nonconsensual sex"
Apart from wanting to send a huge expletive filled rant your ignorant, ill informed way, I should tell you that the concerns about photographic & non-photographic visual depictions of rape and sexual violence are concerns for rl organisations who are also aware of the content in SL. Extreme pornography legislation - flawed as it is - is already in place in England and Wales and is under consultation to be introduced in Scotland.

FYI: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S3/committees/justice/inquiries/CriminalJusticeandLicensing/CJL17.pdf

You'll note that SL gets a mention in the document above.

I notice you ignore women's views counter to your own.

I don't think that 'free speech' exists anywhere in the world. Free speech is limited for many reasons. There are even stickies in these forums saying what we can and cannot discuss.

The depictions of Extreme Violence legislation in Britain is also under considerations in several other European countries, and it begs the question of whether SL could find itself proscribed, unless it removes such content before making SL available to European customers. Mark Kingdon could then possibly find himself under arrest if he ever visited Britain, as a purveyor of such material, in much the same way as the owners of ligitimate businesses in Britain (on-line gambling, for example) found themselves under arrest when they visted the States.

Rock

No one is attempting to silence nor intimidate anyone from what I have read in the thread, the OP asked for reactions and is getting reactions, I have seen some very intelligent answers from both sides of the coin as in other ladies who are feminists and totally disagree with your style of feminism, thats just good healthy debate imho.



Information that is in the public domain? I think it is important for people to know what there is to know about the people they are debating with, especially when people do do not put all their cards on the table, but put it in the public domain.

Again in public domain the OP wrote

http://feministnetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/paddle-by-any-other-name-thoughts-on.html



So for me I see someone that wants to lead a crusade because the words describing an item for sale in SL offends them and even uses the pictures from SL of the item on their blog and also her interpretation of another item for sale in SL, where she uses a picture from a product for sale in SL with her caption

http://feministnetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/war-of-words-thoughts-on-defining-adult.html

Doing that is no different than me pointing out similarities between avatar profiles here.



If you stick your head above the sandbags be prepared to be shot at



In reply to the above piece I hold to the Caan statement here

http://www.caan.org.uk/statement.html



PS: In the matter of fairness I have place a link to the "Left Unity Feminist Network" on the SLapt.me wiki as I feel both sides of the argument should be presented.

http://www.slapt.me/wiki/index.php/Related_Groups_%26_Protest_Material

The hope in citing this here is exactly what, then? To rally an active opposition to get such RL laws overturned?

It's difficult to imagine a worse time to try to make this case, at the height of the furor over Adult Content marginalization. LL's bungling of that initiative has poisoned anything that could be construed as content restriction.

I doubt that this group actually intends nor even wants to advance their stated cause. Nobody has such a tin ear for politics, timing, and expression. It is indeed quite counterproductive to that cause, positively galvanizing opposition that will now last for years in the general SL populace.

Lest this be mistaken for a serious attempt to gain support, note that the cited passage was introduced by this bit of charm:Those who would advance this position would do well to find different voices on its behalf.

Look, for the last time, this is not a cartel, (that is a small group of regulars that meets in-world); this is not a free speech haven; this is a GAME HELP message board, in particular a "residents answers" forum for questions particular to game play. It is not your private blog. It is not your soapbox. And it is an offshoot of a BUSINESS, and as such a private concern.

Understand the difference?



First of all - heh, look who's talking.

And second - persecution complex much? *yawn*

What I would really like to know is what are these places the OP is concerned about? All places that state there could be rape like roleplay sims, or something else?

My alt has roleplayed in Gor for 1.5 years, all sims will mention rape and forced collaring warnings. Thing is, it is roleplay, just that and really it doesn't happen that much. I have never been raped in all my time there and close only twice where I was rescued before. The rape, if happened, would be part of my charactors life story surviving in Gor, not advocating hatred towards women.

Normally if captured while on main the roleplay could sound a little scary, in IM there is normally checking all is ok, limits and even if the capture was valid, all very friendly and not menacing. Most times though you are traded back with very little harm done. Force collar to those that know little about roleplay probably sounds awful, but it is in fact usually only three days of enslavement before agreeing for a way to return you to your own sim if on the rare occassion you have not been traded, escaped or rescued. Visitors to gorean sims are in no danger from these 'rapes' and 'forced collars' as meters and tags are used. If you are observing you are not even supposed to engage with roleplayers on main. Rape and forced collar are totally consensual within each persons roleplay limits and IM agreements. 'Fade to black' can also be used in roleplay to let the event have happened but not have to actually do it all.

Should the hundreds of interactive Gor roleplay sims be closed down because it could happen in a roleplay storyline?