Is there an alternative that you think is better? Also, is their "version" of feminism a problem since they're so clear about what it is? It doesn't seem like they're hiding their perspective at all, so readers can decide how to interpret based on that knowledge.
Their version of feminism isn't all that clear at all from the description. Essentially all forms of feminism that revolve around women's "feelings and lived experiences" use them to prop up their underlying ideological beliefs - the only feelings and lived experiences that are accepted are the ones that confirm their ideology.
You can see this in the list of out-of-scope items. For example, no "apologia for misogynist, anti-feminist, oppressive, or other harmful actions or ideas" is allowed - in practice this tends to include stuff like having an unfeminine attitude to sex and sexuality, doing sex work, being friends with anyone who does, opposing bans on it, being kinky, or complaining about any bad experiences you've had with other mainstream feminist women including systematic online and offline harassment (which is a serious problem for some groups of women).
If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
> You can see this in the list of out-of-scope items. For example, no "apologia for misogynist, anti-feminist, oppressive, or other harmful actions or ideas" is allowed - in practice this tends to include stuff like having an unfeminine attitude to sex and sexuality, doing sex work, being friends with anyone who does, opposing bans on it, being kinky, or complaining about any bad experiences you've had with other mainstream feminist women including systematic online and offline harassment (which is a serious problem for some groups of women).
Am I misunderstanding you? If your point of view is against sex work and "unfeminine" attitudes towards sex (wtf does that even mean anyway), it seems to me that you are being misogynist and quite possibly oppressive. I don't doubt those people exist, I've met quite a few of them, but that doesn't say anything directly about what the geek feminism wiki does and represents.
> If you think about the guidelines it's easy to tell they exclude some women's feelings and lived experiences, but there's no way to tell which. The linked page makes it sound like the policy affects oppressors when it's mostly those who are worst off that get screwed.
Is there any evidence to suggest that geek feminism wiki does that? Are viewpoints on sex work or sexuality skewed towards one point of view, or are there many points of view about those subjects on the wiki?
If your point of view is against sex work and "unfeminine" attitudes towards sex (wtf does that even mean anyway), it seems to me that you are being misogynist and quite possibly oppressive.
No, that's just sex-negative feminism. It's pretty common. In fact, the two major opponents to pornography have always been the conservative right and the feminist left. Opinion on BDSM is usually a litmus test for sex-positivity or sex-negativity.
As a whole, GFW appears to be sex-positive, with a few caveats as to how it understands objectification.
