onscenity network - what they think of mumsnet campaign

better to do it from within, though, eh?

obv not.

it seems very insular... i don't know anything about media departments really...

(some of) these guys do seem to be working with actual sexual health clinics and stuff though, so there must be some sort of multi-discip thing going on... i'm very confused.

oh well. not an unusual position for me to be in.

There must be lots of people researching the sexualisation of children in fields like law, child psychology social policy and so on - they perhaps just don't associate with this research group.

Maybe this always happens in Media Studies - the academics spend more time thinking about media and associating with people who work in the media (in this case pornographers) than they spend thinking about the rest of society.

i was pondering that on the way to the supermarket actually. (the were the rad fems jumped or were they pushed, angle)

but i'd say anyone that persuades the ahrc to give them money and holds the title of professor is what passes for academia currently...

why let it lie though? surely to get the backing of the establishment in that manner by fighting your way back in would be the brave thing to do? the turning the other cheek and ignoring thing is a bit... i dunno... defeatist?

millyr - you would think that child psychology would be at leas tpart of the research... alongside the businesses and professors of sex. (but really)

This funding should have gone to child psychologists. Surely they are the people who are actually able to give expert advice on what impact sexualisation is going to have.

These media people seem to have been ignored; hopefully it will stay that way.

ok

and never the twain shall meet, etc etc.

i think it's a shame that rad fems have shunned academia. even to the point of refusing to debate, but hey ho. by taking up a standpoint as a deliberate outsider i suppose it prevents any messy discussion over boundaries.

right, gotta grocery shop or we're all starving tonight.

i happen to think that academic debate around contentious issues should actually look at both sides of the debate, dittany. particularly research that is funded by one of the research councils. but i know you don't have a particularly high opinion of academic research.

otherwise it isn't really contributing to a discussion. or an academic debate. it's just a mutual appreciation society. even students have to defend their ideas (or actually have them). so do onscenity. you can only be on 'send' for so long before you have to switch to 'receive'. you on one side of the fence on 'send' and them on the other on 'send' won't reach a workable consensus which can move forward into real policy work which does make a difference in the real world, against violence.

presumably their argument is that porn doesn't encourage violence against women. which is fine as an argument as far it goes (they can argue what they like), but you do have to back it up somehow. just saying it doesn't, doesn't cut it. you can call it moral panic, but if the ones causing the panic have an evidence-based argument, then to do so sounds a bit hollow if you don't back it up with anything other than 'the girls are alright'.

some of the stuff on the blog is fine - we know that a short skirt doesn't mean you're up for it. we know that if a man thinks a 7yo in a padded bikini is a turn-on it says everything about the man and nothing about the 7yo. but there doesn't seem to be much actual research going on. or debate being entered into.

i sort of relate it to international relations . you can all stand in your own country and throw bombs at each other, or you can sit down and talk and actually try and come up with a solution to whatever the problem is. and that will actually involve listening to the other side. whether you agree with them or not. you can't refute their reasoning until you know what their reasoning is.

if they really want to be seen as the experts on the sex/ consumerism topic, then they are going about it in a really odd way.

but you'll be pleased to know that having spent a couple of hours trawling media and comms departments, i'm now far more worried about that side of academia than i am about gender studies...

it does rather seem to bely their blog description of the current status quo as 'the girls are alright'. hadn't seen that thread. grim.

they do need to take this stuff up and include it if they hope to be taken seriously.

and 27 followers.

i'm guessing the publicity angle from the communication and media gurus is deliberately minimal... interesting.

clare bale suggested as much in her notes though - there was apparently discussion about media interest. so presumably it's all being kept deliberately low key.

bah.

they've only made four as far as i can see. unenlightening, although one did give you link to sign up for their website.

have you signed up to the website weeo? they want a bio and i'm not sure i can be bothered. it might be the only way to work out what's going on though. are you already linked up from the seminar?