It constantly astounds me when people want to defend their supposed right to have pictures of naked women in their workspace (i.e. on desktop or screensaver) as freedom of speech vs. censorship.

It’s not a matter of wanting to ban people from looking at such images, or even from displaying them, but it is a matter of whether or not the workplace is an appropropate venue. And in most cases, the exception being if you work in the sex industry, the answer will be “No”.

I’ve been excited about the ideas that have been in the threads on this blog in the last week or so because it’s something that’s so often neglected, especially in FLOSS, but it’s a good reality check to be reminded that I need to think about how to engage in the dialog appropriately, respectfully, and productively.

Likewise, laws in Rhode Island had moved to decriminalize prostitution. If we accept the premise that being a prostitute is bad for *all* women (a premise hotly disputed by many prostitutes themselves) how can we advocate making life even harder for these women? The law seeking passage, again by certain self-identified feminists, will require land lords to evict any woman practicing prostitution in her home. That most definitely does nothing to aid a woman to find other work, and will likely ensure she remains marginalized in “criminal” activity even longer.

The point is, that most often these ideas that we should prevent some kind of art, or idea, because it harms women, are very often used, once passed, to further marginalize women already in desperate circumstances.

NOTE: While certain group of self-identified feminists advocate these onerous restrictions, which tend to hurt women most, other self-identified feminists repudiate these kinds of harsh, oppressive measures.