Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/08/Category:Females featuring armpits

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Females featuring armpits

[edit]

This category is a disparagement of women, especially the categorized female athletes. Stepro (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro: So what do you think should be done? Delete the category? Merge it into Category:Female armpits? I would favor merging because I don't see any difference between the two. I do think it would be good to segregate the nude and partially nude images into a subcategory, though, so that people aren't confronted with them unexpectedly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete both. I don't see any encyclopedic, educational, or documentary use in this nonsense category. Commons isn't here to cater to any fetishes. Stepro (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There's no problem, just a problem of interpretation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoWings: Please be specific: what interpretation issue do you see? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing a "disparagement of women" is a question of interpretation. But we should create Category:Males featuring armpits to prevent such loose reading. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Question I described why I don't think that this category should be on Commons. The only "argument" for keeping is my "misinterpretation". So please describe the purpose for this category on Commons. --Stepro (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stepro: You speak about "disparagement" so tell us why it's disparagement. Objectively it's not, it just describes what it is. But it may be possible to replace "featuring" by another term if that is the problem.
    The purpose is to separate close-up photographs of armpits and photos where we see a woman with visible armpits (e.g. with hands up in the air). What's the problem with that?
    But I see you've got a problem with Category:Female armpits too and you talk about fetishes! Apparently you have two problems: 1) You see that as fetishes while it's just a way to categorize pictures about body parts ; 2) Even if it's fetishes, there's no problem with that, Commons isn't censored and can propose many subjects, includint fetishes. Apparently you don't seem to understand Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it exists, there's porn of it, is a well known phrase. One could expand it to, there's a fetish about it. There's nothing wrong with fetishes. But Commons is a pool of media with enzyclopedic value, that's the scope. Enzyclopedic in the sense of Wikipedia, not as an enzyclopedia of/for porn and fertishes. At least that's what I thought as a contributor since the beginning of this project. Fetishes may be the object of description, but we are not here to collect and provide - and categorize - images for fetishists. At least I can see no other purpose of this category. "it just describes what it is" and "it's just a way to categorize pictures about body parts" are just excuses.
    Another aspect, and I think that's where Stepro is coming from like myself, is that we, the photographers, have an obligation towards the people we take pictures of. For example we don't upload bad pictures (grimaces, Paparazzi shots etc.). I'd have a hard time explaining to one of the sportspeople or artists I photograph if they'd ask me why my pictures of them are categorized to please fetishists (on the other hand I have already stopped uploading some kinds of pictures to Commons because of the again and again disrespectful treatment of the picures respectively the people depicted).
    If we delete it the free knowledge that's at the core of all our Wiki projects won't be harmed. --Tsui (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoWings: You have now written again what you think I'm misinterpreting and that I wouldn't understand Commons - which I btw. consider it quite cheeky. However, you still haven't spelled out the encyclopedic, educational, or documentary purpose of this category. Stepro (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No effort from you. I won't continue to argue with such a person. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category is just one example of many on Commons in which people, particularly women, but also images of naked men, are categorized at a level of detail and emphasis on some physical aspect that on the one hand is only derogatory to the pictured person (I had to Remove pictures of me from the "Overweight Man" category already, I don't see it and I refuse to be categorized that way!). The emphasis on certain physical features or the incredibly detailed sorting of nudity - both are more reminiscent of fetishes than of factual sorting - contradict our own requirement to respect personal rights. In view of how negative the attitude towards pubic hair is in many societies - whether on the genitals or under the arms - such categories can only be understood as negative categories. Or as a gathering point for a fetish. Neither is the point of commons.
As photographers of people, we also have a duty to ensure that these people are not degraded to fetish objects. Just as I will not accept, for example, that pictures of women playing beach sports (beach volleyball, beach handball) that I took pictures of will end up in sexualized categories. It has to do with respect, but also with the fact that we otherwise make ourselves look ridiculous outside of the wiki projects, but also have to reckon with the consequences. After all, which organizers will still want to accredit us when they realize what's going on here in terms of degrading people?Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Tsui and @Marcus Cyron, that's exactly the problem I see. The so categorized sports women are not featuring their armpits, but they do their sports competitions. To put their pictures in this category is in my opinion a) very disrespectful und b) sexism. Stepro (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the photos are not the problem, only the categorization. There is a huge difference whether, for example, photos of women are showing also their breasts (of course they do), or whether a category claims that they present them - what they don't.
It is frightening that this apparent difference has yet to be explained at great length. --Stepro (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's like talking to a wall. You don't want to understand (or you only pretend not to understand). The problem are not the images. The proble is the categorization. For example a sportswoman has not to be categorized under "Females featuring armpits", "Females wearing bikinis" or something like that. The main subject and the main focus is sport, is a sportsperson. Not armpits. To reduce or to focus on such a detail is disgracing. It seems, some people here really want a shitstorm here. Or a Commons #metoo, where sexualized sportwomen tell the public, how Wikimedians on Commons treat them. Or men, as I told yesterday, also in the men's cat system there's a lot wrong and there's much sexualisation. Beginning with the standard image for Category:Nude males. Nude males are symbolized by a male torso with a full errect penis? What the hell is wring with this project? Some people here really should check their priorities.
To accuse censorship, even though nobody wants to delete such pictures, also speaks for itself. Apart from the fact that many have not understood what censorship is (Commons cannot censor, we are not an authority), we restrict various things anyway. Advertising, private pictures, ironically human nudity in photography, inflammatory propaganda, violations of rights at least in democracies, and a few other things. Not allowing every crap is a must, internal project hygiene. And that also applies to disparaging or off-topic categorizations. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The obcenity is not in the image, but in the labeling of the image in a context that has nothing to do with the person depicted. We are violating personal rights by putting these images into unfitting categories. In my opinion we should create some kind of mechanism on Commons that allows uploaders and users to block certain categories for specific images even in retrospect. I know there are people who will want to find certain images with certain features and as as tolerant person I am not going to judge their intentions. But in my opinion their right to find such images to please their pleasure should not outweigh the right of the depicted persons to become the target of such pleasures. As long as we do not have such a mechanism we should delete Categories like this one, that pretend something the depicted persons didn't do. In this case "feature" something! Wuselig (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not an educational category, not useful --Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I just found files in the uncreated category Category:Males featuring armpits, so I created the category. Whatever is done with the female category under discussion should probably be done with the male one as well. --
  •  Delete Useless duplicate of Category:Female armpits. Furthermore, I believe that the criteria for inclusion for Category:Female armpits should be made stricter. Only pictures where the armpit is clearly the main focus of the image, and its inclusion is not incidental, should be allowed in that category. I believe that illustrations of female armpits might be educationally useful, for example, for people studying anatomy, but only if the illustration was intentionally created for the express purpose of illustrating female anatomy. All female humans have armpits, and because of this, female armpits are likely to incidentally end up even in photographs that weren't originally intented for the purpose of illustrating the concept of armpits. Such pictures are poorly suited for the task of illustrating the concept of female armpits, and do not belong to Category:Female armpits or any of its possible subcategories. Chiolite (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for Category:Males featuring armpits and its parent category Category:Male armpits, I believe this exactly same argument applies.  Delete Category:Males featuring armpits as an unnecessary duplicate, and remove all of the "incidental" pictures from Category:Male armpits for not being actually useful for illustrating male anatomy. Chiolite (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for User:Stepro's original claim implied claim that the category contains pornography, a claim they later made explicitly, sorry Stepro, I looked at the images, and I did not see porn. I saw images of hardworking athletes and entertainers doing their jobs. I think there is an old joke that illustrates why the underlying issue here is your subjective interpretation.
highly relevant joke, about a psychiatrist assessing a new patient using the inkblot test
A psychiatrist explains to the new patient that, as part of reaching their initial diagnosis they are going to administer some standard diagnostic tests, starting with showing some inkblots, and then asking the patient what he sees.
The doctor starts showing the patient inkblots, and the patient calmly says: "Well, that first one? That is a man and woman fucking on a picnic blanket. That second one, shows a man and woman fucking in a canoe. This next one shows a man and woman fucking on a porch swing. The next one shows a man and woman fucking on the kitchen table...
At this point the doctor puts down the inkblots, and says, "Normally, I don't make a diagnosis until all the tests are complete. But, in your case, I think it is already clear... You are obsessed with sex."
At this the patient gets mad! "Jesus Christ Doc! I didn't come here to be insulted! I can't believe you said that to me! After all, they are your pictures!'"
Sorry Stepro, but I think you are seeing a pornography problem others of us don't recognize. Did you consider simply going through the images in the category, picking out those which you think clearly and unambiguously, to use your term, "disparage women"? You could then initiate a request to delete the small fraction of these images that you regard as a genuine problem. But, if you can't do that, or if you try that, and those discussions close with images being kept, then I think it would be clear those images should be categorized.
User:Marcus Cyron seems to claim there is a problem with "sexualized [images of] sportwomen". As per the point made in the joke, isn't this an issue within the perceiver, not with the images themselves?
Over a decade ago I took a dip into the long, ongoing battle, as to how many images related to human sexuality the commons should contain. Some participants in that battle are only prepared to agree to a very limited number. For other participants that limited number is zero.
I spent half an hour trying to figure out how many images there were in the subcategories for flowers - the sexual organs of flowering plants. Because some images of flowers were in multiple categories, I found it hard to give precise guess. But, at that time, there were at the very least tens of thousands of images that showed the sexual organs of plants, vastly outnumbering the number of images we had that showed the sexual organs of people. In my opinion it would be completely appropriate for the commons to have as many images that showed the sexual organs of humans as we had images showing the sexual organs of plants.
Why would it be useful, "in scope", to have categories that "feature" armpits? I invite people to use their imagination. Earth's population is what now? Something like 8 billion? And how many of those 8 billion are children? If you were a child, just going through puberty, who was growing up in a culture with hangups, so you had never seen an armpit with armpit hair, or the only time you saw armpit hair was when you glimpsed your disgusting older brother or older sister, after they took a shower, you could worry that this armpit hair made you a freak of nature. images featuring armpits, or even a commons category whose title said it featured armpit hair, could be highly useful to you, so you could reassure yourself the hair was normal, and you were not a freak.
There are probably at least 100 million children who find their bodies suddenly sprouted unexpected hair in their armpits, and elsewhere, who benefit from images that showed armpit hair was natural.
So, no, I do not agree at all with Stepro's censorship efforts. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never written anything about pornography, and I have no problem with it.
This is about disrespect for women, especially female athletes.
I will no longer comment on posts at this abysmal level. Stepro (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Not to understand, that a sexual reduction of women (and of course of men too) to their body parts has really nothing to do with "There are probably at least 100 million children who find their bodies suddenly sprouted unexpected hair in their armpits, and elsewhere, who benefit from images that showed armpit hair was natural" is not my problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople lifting their arms on the finishing line or throwing balls are not featuring their armpits. This is the misinterpretation. --Ailura (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/08/Category:Females_featuring_armpits&oldid=693512391"