icewolf: surrounded by freaks (surrounded by freaks)
I swear, if I see one more person respond to the phrase "women should be able to wear whatever they like without fear" with "while you have the right to wear whatever you want, wearing a meat dress for a walk through a dog park may not be the wisest of choices" I cannot be held responsible for my actions. First of all, way to compare me with meat. Very nice. Secondly, most, if not all, women have learned this lesson, painfully (whether through humiliation or Worse) by the time they're sixteen. Really? I shouldn't wear a deep-V belly shirt, a micro-mini, and 4-inch heels down a dark street in Druid Hill? The devil, you say! I would never have thought such a thing! Lastly, you're responding to a gender equality issue with a public safety tip. Apples and oranges.

As a few of my friends (wave to [personal profile] commodorified and [profile] ducinbradbury)around these parts have written lately, how about we make sexual assault prevention about, you know, people not assaulting others? It's degrading to both men AND women to keep the status quo. Men[1] are human beings perfectly capable of keeping their hands and genitalia to themselves. Such assumptions that they can be oh-so-easily turned into assaulters by a flash of skin is incredibly demeaning. Additionally, women[2] should not bear the responsibility for keeping themselves from being assaulted by determining what they're going to wear on a given day (or evening) based on what might (or might not) attract a would-be attacker.

A perfect example is the poor man who was beaten at a Dodgers game for wearing a Giants jersey. No one has ever said he "asked for it." No one has done anything but completely denounce the people who assaulted him so terribly. Not even the usual trolls have come out to play in the comment sections of these news stories. It says something. And it's nothing good.

1. That's not to say that men are the only people who sexually assault others, but all too often, in common discourse, this is how the roles get boiled down.

2. Same goes for women--they're not 100% of the victim base by a tragic long shot.
icewolf: snowy wolf (Default)
Here's the very speedy reply I got to my support message last night...

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns. We understand that gender is not binary, and intend to respect that understanding for our users.

At this time, the code you reference is not live on the site, and will not become so in the future. We know that you, and many other users, have serious concerns about any requirement to specify gender, so we'd like to take a moment to explain events and our position further.

The intention of this code was to change the sign-up process to include a field for the selection of gender; that the code would completely disable the "Unspecified" option at the same time was deemed unacceptable. While the code in question had gone to our beta (testing) server, it had not gone to our production server, and will not do so due to this problem. Furthermore, we'd like to clarify that code posted to the changelog community is not always final, as such code must then go through the beta testing process and can often be changed before actual implementation.

Additionally, some erroneous information has been spread regarding the potential public display of the gender field. We would like to clarify that gender is not currently publicly displayed on the profile, nor anywhere else on the site, and there are no plans to change this behavior.

LiveJournal Community Care Team

That being said.... I got a Dreamwidth invite. And I'm using it. I will still be cross posting between the two for the foreseeable future (especially since I just reupped my paid account), so don't panic about me disappearing. But, while I initially understood the need for ad revenue--hey they need to make money, right?--having gotten a taste of directed marketing over at Facebook, I'm kind of nauseated. And LJ's headed in that direction if they're not there already. It just makes no business sense for them not to do it. Also, over at Dreamwidth, I get to be [personal profile] icewolf. Just [personal profile] icewolf. No numbers, just... me. Which is honestly kind of cool.
icewolf: snowy wolf (gods grant me the strength...)
Okay, LJ is getting into major Gender!Fail.

Long story short, in the next code push, probably, LJ plans to a.) remove the ability to choose "unspecified" for gender (meaning you have to pick male or female, and that's it), and b.) You HAVE to choose a gender. Source.

This is just getting silly. You can leave feedback, and I encourage you to do so civilly and politely (the first line of defense is actually on the users' side on this one, so be nice).

However, while I've generally been happy with LJ as a blogging program, and been reluctant to move just because of the sheer size of my archive, I'm starting to seriously consider jumping the fence to Dreamwidth. The most likely reason for the change is the ability to target ads with more precision, and I detest all the diet and Barbie ads I'm getting over at Facebook. I sure as hell don't want to look at them here. Not to mention the whole leaving trans/questioning/etc. folks out in the cold, and yanking a level of camouflage some women use to avoid online predators (not to mention day-to-day creeps).

So, if anyone were to find a dusty old invite in the back of their virtual closets, I'd make good use of it...


icewolf: snowy wolf (Default)

August 2011

1415161718 1920
21222324 252627


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 11:03 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios