On 9/16/04 20:52 in the Merchant Forum here (for which it is a TOS violation to excerpt or reword posts), there was a post regarding a particular product name. This post, and the resultant thread, was a continuation of a separate one. I was not the poster. While I commented in the first one, I did not in the second one until I'd had enough. In the course of this thread, the administration of this site set forth as part of their present policy the following things: 1.) The denigrating term was not offensive to them, allowing anyone to thereby use said term to denigrate other women within the site since it is not officially an offensive phrase under TOS. Since there is no specific list of terms given, one can potentially expect that with a possible solitary exception, any term which denigrates women is acceptable and allowed within Renderosity TOS. 2.) Acted in a manner which was insensitive, dismissive, and condescending towards the individuals and the concrns expressed regarding this denigrating term. I have not reworked nor reposted the thread. I have simply described it in general terms. This will likely not matter, however. I became incensed that a community which claims (though aspires is a better term) to function professionally and supposedly seeks to promote community would both act in such a manner and make such a broad based decision when it was blatantly obvious that the term was offensive to a large number of merchants responding, and when a reasonable person would be aware that the term is, in the larger community beyond the site, predominantly considered rude and vulgar. I am generally a fairly reasonable person and not particularly given to breaking rules to which I agreed. There comes a time, however, when, for what one believes is right, that one must act, regardless of the risk or outcome. Therefore I have done so. I have recieved thus far one TOS vioaltion and had my access - and the access of a business to which I am partner -- to the Merchant forum removed for having begun the process of posting the complete thread (though I was unable to finish). I have essentially begun a campaign of awareness with the purpose of ensuring that the membership of renderosity and the customers who shop here -- inclusive of my own store and the store of that business to which I am part -- what the apparent policy of renderosity is towards the treatment and consideration of women. This appears to be, based on what is allowed in the store and the actions of the administration in dealing with matters such as this one, that women are second class, and of less concern to them, and unworthy of equitable treatment. So what can fix this? Action on the part of the administration to apologize for behavior and conduct and a retraction of the policy. Despite attempts by others and administration to make this particular point into an issue focussing on a single word, I want to make it clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with a product or a product name, and that it has everything to do with the conduct and policy implementation of the site's administration. Apologies should be for behavior and conduct, not the policy, and the policy needs to be revisited, with acceptable and posted guidelines put in place. Until such time as these elements are done, I shall continue to attempt to educate the membership and customers of Renderosisty -- both current and potential -- as to this policy, as it is unlikely one that it is desired the customer base be made aware of.

ynsaen.. I respect you and am not against what you are saying.. but i do have to point out.. Apparent Policy of Renderosity as regards Women Merchants & Customers the title of this thread. It's not a policy regarding women merchants and customers.. it's about naming issue. as for the rest. Rosity is full of double standards and as far as I know that's not going to change.

Thanks, hon :) The administrators make it policy under TN law. Essentially, they act as agents, and, as such, their saying so makes it policy. I know it's full of double standards. The world is. I'm trying to correct a bit of rudeness and maybe inspire a bit of empathy in them that seems to have been absent (though given some of the language, possibly not without reason). To me, it was wrong. And just like I did a long time ago when someone was trying to harm my kids, I'm acting on what I believe. I just hope this time it doesn't hurt quite as much...

oh I understand but i guess i think of it as throwing yourself against a brick wall. it hasn't changed since after diane jack and ed left. I doubt it's going to change now. I've given up trying to change things here. It doesn't work. What shocks people today grows into a huge thread, is forgotten in 2 weeks. Rosity is famous for this. unfortunantly

lol -- too true. But a girl's gotta do what's in her heart. This'll be over tomorrow -- either they'll delete everything or just ignore it, and I might get my second violation in two days or maybe even a banning. No matter what though, I've done what I needed to do. And that's all that ever counts, ultimately.

ynsaen, i know what this is about, i have been in contact with a few individuals who have expressed their dissapointment about what has happened and how they feel they have been treated here. I have been a member here for quite some time, but if you look back you will find i have hardly posted, i have come to the conclusion it is not worth saying anything because the 'powers that be' don't want to listen to 'us' they only want to listen to a few 'exclusive friends' it doesn't matter what their 'friends' do but when it is one of 'us'.... well just look out... I know one person has been 'kicked out' because of this, which i find disturbing. I'm a man and i find some of the 'termanology' offensive towards women, so in this regard you have my full support. Piglet

And people wonder why some of us left to form our own " discussion group". I would invite ya's to it, but then that would be a violation of the TOS too as we arent allowed to tell anyone else about other sites here. Wich is well at best a laughable rule.

BDC I think you're only not allowed to promote rival brokerage sites, not other discussion sites. Rosity would most likely rather the more rambunctious contributors went some other place to exchange harsh words and strong language with each other anyway :o) @ynsaen I think you were right to complain about that product name. Mick.

Dear ynsaen, The original issue was definitely over the use of a single word in another merchants product name. That is what started this ball rolling. When a few merchants expressed their dislike of the product name, our Admin team looked into it. Our Admin team is comprised of 5 women and 4 men. None of the women have a problem with it, nor did we find it offensive. We also heard from many other merchants, several women included, that indicated that they did not find this offensive or rude. We did listen. We did respond. We investigated. Upon investigation discovered that this was not considered offensive or rude by a large majority, women included. We advised our decision not to force a name change. If we had found this to be offensive to more than a few competing merchants, or any complaints from members, we would have taken action to have the name changed. This was simply not the case. I do understand that a few people, for whatever reasons, may be sensitive with regards to particular terms or phrases. We apologize if you were upset by another merchants use of such a word. We apologize if you were upset when the action you desired was not taken. No offense was intended nor implied. Simply was a statement of the facts and the decision. Why force censorship upon a fellow merchant when a majority of people do not see a need to do so? What was lacking was respect from the few merchants that didn't like the word, to accept that there are many other merchants (including many women) that have a difference of opinion. Also missing was a lack of respect for following the rules of the merchant forum. I admire that you are standing up for your convictions. However, I think there are more positive ways to go about standing up for what you believe in. Ways that also respect the opinions of others. I hope this helps to clarify the issue just a bit. Best regards, LillianH

Ahhh boy....'bookmark'

Lillian, By chance, did you happen to actually read what I wrote, or are you doing what so many others have done and read what you might like to see? Your entire post has, essentially, nothing to do witht eh specific issues I have, whatsoever. If you read it, you will note I don't actually have a particular concern about the use of the word. Which is a fancy way of saying I don't care what the damned thing is called. 1.) The denigrating term was not offensive to them, allowing anyone to thereby use said term to denigrate other women within the site since it is not officially an offensive phrase under TOS. Since there is no specific list of terms given, one can potentially expect that with a possible solitary exception, any term which denigrates women is acceptable and allowed within Renderosity TOS. 2.) Acted in a manner which was insensitive, dismissive, and condescending towards the individuals and the concrns expressed regarding this denigrating term. ONE is to indicate that in your decision, however general it may be, you have, since it becomes policy, you have now essentially made it entirely possible for anyone to call anyone else in this place "Juggs" -- and not receive a TOS violation for it. By extension, there are several other terms which may or may not be offensive to a greater majority of your customer and merchant base that can now be used, again without risk of violating TOS, creating a potentially hostile environment to women. TWO is precisely what you, in your, your, your amazingly inept manner have just done by utterly ignoring, misinterpreting, and flat out attempting to twist what I have said into something about something that it is NOT about. What I am having a hissy fit about (that I was pretty damned chilled out about right up until I read this) was the manner in which the people who did express their concerns were addressed and treated. ANd now I'm pissed off about it all over again, because this is exactly what I am talking about! Look at the tone and the demeanor of the sentences you just wrote! Look at the manner of expression! And now, oh boy, now let me dive in to what You did say and pick the shit out of it... "If we had found this to be offensive to more than a few competing merchants, or any complaints from members, we would have taken action to have the name changed. This was simply not the case." A - In the two threads combined, there were 17 female merchants who specifically had a problem with it -- and of them, none makes figures which possess exaggerated traits. B - How the heck are you going to get member complaints when members can't even see the threads? Well gee, there goes that one -- none of the folks with a cow are competing, and members at large can't se the thread. Obviously you didn't research it effectively. That or you lied. "I do understand that a few people, for whatever reasons, may be sensitive with regards to particular terms or phrases. We apologize if you were upset by another merchants use of such a word." Lillian, I've read your posts here several times on other occasion, I believe that you do understand that. I also believe you didn't pay a damn bit of attention to what I said becuase if you had, you'd note that you don't need to apologize to me. You need to apologize to the merchants you treated badly. "We apologize if you were upset when the action you desired was not taken. No offense was intended nor implied. Simply was a statement of the facts and the decision." Lillian, I didn't give a damn about the action being taken regarding the decision. Again, perhaps if you'd read what I said you may have understood this. So to twist this into somethign that I wanted, when I wasn't the one making the request in the first place is a bit bothersome. Somewhat reminiscent of, well, now that I think about it, what got me all pissed off in the first place. Gee -- funny, ain't it? "Why force censorship upon a fellow merchant when a majority of people do not see a need to do so?" Oh, so now I'm suddenly a censor? Damn -- and I didn't even ask for the name to be changed. Once again, you didn't read. ONce again, you are dismissive. Once again, you deomnstrate a need for some sort of serious sensitivity training within your company for there's something very wrong here, and it isn't me. "What was lacking was respect from the few merchants that didn't like the word, to accept that there are many other merchants (including many women) that have a difference of opinion. Also missing was a lack of respect for following the rules of the merchant forum." Not a few merchants, one merchant, Lillian. One who was fed up, and was becoming more and more aggravated by the condescension, dismissiveness, and failure to pay attention to what was being said by the administration of this site. Damn but I'm seeing a trend here. On the second one, I had full respect for the rules. I even told you I was going to do it. Twice. And then I did, knowing full well what the consequences would be. It's something akin to civil disobedience, not respect, Lillian. "I admire that you are standing up for your convictions. However, I think there are more positive ways to go about standing up for what you believe in. Ways that also respect the opinions of others." Thank you. I believe we should all stand up for what we believe in. However, I am willing to take suggestions for a method more positive than the one I have chosen. Perhaps I should have written an article to accompany the sending of the thread the newspapers? Is that it in particular? And I find it wholly laughable that you would infer that I'm the one devaluing the opinons of others when it is that same action on the part of renderosity that spurred my activities the past two days. That is an insult, ma'am. And I do not forget them, and I do not forgive them. and lastly but certainly not least: "I hope this helps to clarify the issue just a bit." Were you laughing loudly when you said that one? Were you and your compatriots giigling as that line was typed? becuase you are not a fool and you are not that thick headed, and that one is just, oh, oh, man did you piss me off.

.

Oh, hell. .

...

I would like to know if my removal from the Merchant forum is permanent .If so , I can't operate a store here anymore and it needs to be taken care of asap. Now.Seeing how every post ive done has been removed or hidden,Ill try again. The obvious double standard around here is sickening.It's their place ,FINE ,enforce it across the board and don't kiss favorites asses. Also , seeing how he who nameth the product requested it to be changed ,it could have saved a lot of trouble on all sides if it were followed through with.(instead of condescending tones and avoiding the situation)

I am insulted. The PTB treat all of us who complained about that name as a sorry little group of PMS'ed hystercal bitches by pretending this isn't a problem. The problem is not the name of this product fro crying out loud. The problem is the way our complaints are swept away! Geez... happy birthday to me :o( What a way to start it.

I, for one, would miss LordFox and Ynsaen's products. Treating merchants cavalierly loses you QUALITY PRODUCTS, R'osity! The people who will stick around will be the ones who don't make you money. RC

I'm sorry, hon. Not the kind of card I had intended.

...

Happy Birthday ernyoka1

I'm sorry, hon. Not the kind of card I had intended. I know. Not YOUR fault :o)

And thanks, Suede :o)

gewddammit! stop bouncing the threads around. started in poser, moved to copyright, now locked and rerouted to this one. so damn frustrating. Renderosity admins, mods, people in charge need to sit in a chat room, or a conference room and work out how they want the letter of the law to be. merchants pissed off, customers confused, threads moved and locked for wrong reasons. whatever rend's site policy on nameing, and TOS needs to be a fixed thing with evrybody on the same page. when an issue is brought up time taken, and a timely decision made. I understand if Rend's policy may piss off merchants/customers/users happens sometimes, people don't always agree. however there is so much miscommunication going on between the people who ARE supposed to know and DO make decisions that it's a cluster. I'm just a user and a customer, or former customer. while watching and reading how merchants are treated and how several issues have blown up with a sweeping under the rug by the admins/mods/someone attached to Rend it becomes more and more of a reason not to purchase from store or use the site. that hurts Rend. AND it's merchants. now while my decisions are a personal one, I have over the last little while watched as others have shared the same exact feelings and intentions. that being not purchasing from store, moving products as a merchant, or quite using the site. to juggs or not, I don't care one way or another, however apparently some DO and that should be enough. I'm rather disapointed that female merchants voiced an opinion, and from the sounds of it a substantial amount of them, and were dismissed. if Rend wants to be family oriented get rid of the t&a, bondage, and boob enhancements and MAKE it family oriented, but whatever policy gets implemented, listen to the people that keep the lights on, seems some are already in the dark it would be unfortunate to be in the cold too. and with that, I am done on the subject. have a ball.

Dear ynsaen,

In order to work things out, we have locked all the other threads that you started in all the other forums and directed all of them here. It will make communication much easier for everyone.

If I understand correctly, you don't care what the other merchant's product is called. Okay, then let's move on to the other concerns.

1. "...allowing anyone to thereby use said term to denigrate other women within the site..." "...entirely possible for anyone to call anyone else in this place "Juggs" -- and not receive a TOS violation for it. By extension, there are several other terms which may or may not be offensive to a greater majority of your customer and merchant base that can now be used..."

If ANY term is used as an attack on a member, it would not be allowed. The key here is the difference in the intended use. We are in fact talking about the name of a product, not an attack directed at a member. If "Juggs" or any other name, were used as part of an attack directed towards a member that would be a different set of circumstances entirely and would not be allowed.

2. Acted in a manner which was insensitive, dismissive, and condescending towards the individuals...

I and the rest of the Renderosity team apologize if there was anything in any of the posts that may have been interpreted this way. This was sincerely not our intent. We are very careful to treat everyone with respect.

Unfortunately, written communication is often misinterpreted because it comes with no body language, facial expressions, or vocal cues to give further understanding of the intended delivery of the message.

For example, a factual response may appear to some readers to be condescending when it was never intended that way. Other readers may read that same message and simply see the information provided. The tone and the demeanor of my sentences is intended to remain factual so it will be possible to work through the issue with you. There was nothing more intended.

As for the number of merchants complaining, 17 merchants is a few when compared to the total number of merchants.

Is it being dismissive when we read a complaint, investigate a complaint, and make a decision based upon the results of the investigation?

All I can do at this point is apologize to all the merchants that may have been upset by any of the posts that were made in regards to this. The fact that we did not choose to force a name change on a product in no way was meant to be dismissive. We simply have a difference of opinion, and based our decision on feedback and input from other merchants and team members. This was done to give a balanced approach to the decision making process.

Best regards,
LillianH
Renderosity Marketing & Promotions

Message edited on: 09/25/2004 18:46

Juggs is a copyrighted and trademarked magazine, can't wait to hear about the law suit (probably wouldn't win but fun to read about). 17 merchants?! what constitutes enough to care about? 200? damn.

Message edited on: 09/25/2004 18:52

I asked Debbie how the correct way would be to address this issue ,,( so I didnt get kicked out) in regards to starting a new thread and voicing my problem with it and her response was "Instant Message from Debbie M.: The correct way would have been to not discuss things that have been hashed out in the Merchant Forum already. Deb" IN my opinion it wasnt dealt with. My post was deleted and I was banned. Then when I asked how the proper way would have been to handle it I get THAT response. SO you can see how I feel my opinion means nothing and I feel as tho ive been smacked across the hands and sent to my room for having a strong opinion about something. I know debbie doesn't like me personally,but when shes in charge she should at least pretend to be professional.

oh but now you've posted a private IM in a public forum, now your double dog doomed.

Im doomed anyway.

I know this is not about the name... But, I really wanted to clarify that as was previously stated in the merchant forum, we are more than willing to change the name of this product, just as soon as we receive notification from this merchant instructing us to do so, and telling us what name to change it to. We have not received any notification from the merchant yet. Thanks, LillianH

Is offensive Mr Magoo to blind people??????? People!!!, Can we have PEACE!!!!!!, it was only one word, can be good, can be bad, it was only one word that started this. If one word can do this, imagine two words or a phrase, we should have the WWIII. PEOPLE, DROP YOUR WEAPONS, GO TO THE GARDEN AND SMELL SOME FLOWERS, THEN RETURN HERE.

We also followed up, requesting the merchant to send us the notification to make the change...still nothing from the merchant. We are trying. We are listening. We are also waiting for the promised notification. But, we are not forcing. Just thought you should know. Thanks, LillianH

ahem ok, what I see and what I don't see constitutes a whole lot. First, what I see. I see an apology to the merchants. It's back handed, but present, and I know ya'll well enough to say ok, you've apologized as best you can. So you know what I mean by back handed: "Unfortunately, written communication is often misinterpreted because it comes with no body language, facial expressions, or vocal cues to give further understanding of the intended delivery of the message. For example, a factual response may appear to some readers to be condescending when it was never intended that way. Other readers may read that same message and simply see the information provided. The tone and the demeanor of my sentences is intended to remain factual so it will be possible to work through the issue with you. There was nothing more intended." While I may be over-educated, I am also a person who uses words for exactly the opposite purposes you describe. Fiction and non-ficition alike use words to convey emotion, sentiment, feeling, and more. Use of this relatively stock phrase is simplistic and ineffective in a situation where you are dealing with a pissed off crazy woman. Please avoid it in the future. For my part, your apology is accepted, and is enough to forestall further action on this issue for the present. I cannot, however, stress strongly enough that the administrative team here does need to get some sort of sensitivity training. It's become a cliche because there is value in it. "If ANY term is used as an attack on a member, it would not be allowed. The key here is the difference in the intended use. We are in fact talking about the name of a product, not an attack directed at a member. If "Juggs" or any other name, were used as part of an attack directed towards a member that would be a different set of circumstances entirely and would not be allowed." This is an acceptable response. It fulfills the other measure. "As for the number of merchants complaining, 17 merchants is a few when compared to the total number of merchants. Is it being dismissive when we read a complaint, investigate a complaint, and make a decision based upon the results of the investigation?" While 17 may be a few, standard social statistics will indicate, based on Phillip's Rule, that those 17 will each speak for a percentage that will not speak out for fear of this sort of thing happening. I'm willing to set a conservative estimate of 5 for each. That would be less than 100 -- still a comparative insignificant number of merchants as a whole, but decidedly not when it comes to the number of active</> merchants. And No, it is not dismissive to invesitgate. However, you've conveniently glosses over the fact that your investigation was ineffective at actually obtaining a fairly decent record of those who might find it offensive. You glossed pretty good over the poitns I raised, and I'll allow it. But you insulted me. I will remember. Thank you for you apologies, your efforts to rectify this matter, and your time to do so. Elle Talent yclept ynsaen

"I know this is not about the name... But, I really wanted to clarify that as was previously stated in the merchant forum, we are more than willing to change the name of this product, just as soon as we receive notification from this merchant instructing us to do so, and telling us what name to change it to. We have not received any notification from the merchant yet. Thanks, LillianH" lol -- yeah, one more thing. Lillian, I know this. This is why it wasn't about the name for me. In fact, I know that extra effort was made to contact said merchant. And thank you for continuing to try.

The one thing that should be mentioned here is that this 'tempest in a teapot' was thoroughly hashed out in an extraordinarily long thread that began in the Merchant's Forum. Many, many people contributed their opinions concerning the offending term.

The final determination made may not have been to everyone's liking but to say that the issue was swept under a carpet or that anyone was treated in a dismissive manner is more than a bit misleading.

It's a damn shame it took getting banned from the merchant forum to get a response tho. Now I'm stuck in a predicament.I think of rosity as a home,but if my Merchant forum access is going to be blocked permanently ,well I don't find that fair.Banned for a week or so maybe ,I can handle that.I dont feel that proper communication can be taken care of without access. As for only 17 ,hardly.I've recieved a LOT of emails and such for standing up.Obviously they were right in fearing speaking their mind tho around this place, look where it gets you. Im still thinking.I'm still burnt over being told I didn't have a right to post my opinion on something that meant a lot to me.(yes thats exactly what that response was) Im not a prude.Im a foul mouthed white-trash hilljack frumpy mom from ohio with way too many pets. I tell you what though, I don't like being told that I'm not allowed to voice my opinion.I especially dont appreciate snide responses to honest questions.

The final determination made may not have been to everyone's liking but to say that the issue was swept under a carpet or that anyone was treated in a dismissive manner is more than a bit misleading. The final determination was that he asked for it to be changed but then it just stopped waiting on everyone to forget about it.

'The final determination was that he asked for it to be changed but then it just stopped waiting on everyone to forget about it.' Or so he said in that thread. I have no reason to doubt Rendo's statement that he never followed through with that request. What else can be done now?

As for only 17 ,hardly.I've recieved a LOT of emails and such for standing up.Obviously they were right in fearing speaking their mind tho around this place, look where it gets you. Lord Fox however if they had stood up and said their piece it would be a lot better. Being the silent majority only gets them nothing. It changes nothing and will never change anything. For me the silent majority is the biggest pain in the butt especially when you recieve pm after pm with "that was a good thing you said and I agree with you" If they agree why not say it where it counts and where it matters? In public. MHO

I agree with Stormrage, so there! ;-) Seriously, I do. If you don't want to say it in a public forum fine, but e-mailing another member has absolutely no impact. Better to e-mail the admin.... if they don't know how many people really do have issues about it how can they make changes?

I agree as well [Hi Judith!] :) This is why I entered this discussion in the first place. I am not personaly offended by this term but I can sure understand that many people find it to be derogatory and offensive. There were a lot of people who responded to the original thread expressing a vehement opposition to the offending term - but that does not neccessarily constitute the opinion of the overwhelming majority of members.

There has been a large degree of dissimulation being forwarded by a determined few who have decided that they will carry this crusade through all the forums as though they are indeed speaking on behalf of this silent majority. If this multitude had chosen to notify the admins of their opposition to the term than maybe things would have been decided differently.

As it is now, a determination has been made. Win some, lose some I say. And I should know - I've lost more than my fair share of battles here but life goes on :)

Well, if I'd been considering a rethink on my plan not to patronize the Rendo Marketplace (after the deleted contest post fiasco) this sure would finish it.

Ynsaen is a bit hot under the collar, but makes some quite reasonable points in there. Chief among these are that it's not so much the name - I've passed by it, rolled my eyes, and moved on - but in how concerns are treated. They are typified by this statement:

If we had found this to be offensive to more than a few competing merchants, or any complaints from members, we would have taken action to have the name changed. This was simply not the case.

Now, I went back and read the thread that started all this, and noted that none of the merchants who complained could be said to be "competing" with the product. This means, to my mind, that the writer was creating an impression that this was a malicious attempt to undercut another merchant, when that was not in fact the case, and wrongs the legitimate concerns of those who complained. (The deletions and forum-lockout also make the impression of a "sweep it under the rug" attitude much stronger.)

That's what I, personally, find offensive. I mean, if I were to slyly insinuate, "Well, those cases of mammary hypertrophy are best-sellers, and of course Renderosity doesn't want to listen to concerns that affect their bottom line..." I imagine Rendo staff would find that quite offensive. Why, then, would they use a similarly slanderous approach to people who are concerned that a certain name objectifies women to an unacceptable extent? "Competing," indeed... pfft.

A suggestion for an alternate approach:

"We understand that some have expressed concern over the use of certain names as possibly demeaning to women. We do take these concerns seriously, as we do not want anyone to feel insulted by the products we offer. However, this puts us in a difficult situation - if we react too strongly to any name someone considers offensive, we will be accused of censorship. It is a fine line to walk, and we're treading it as best as we can.

"The merchant knows of your concerns and is considering a name change. Until he informs us of his final decision, we ask you to be patient. A voluntary change on the part of the merchant would be the simplest solution from our point of view. However, if the merchant is not amenable to the changes, we will have to revisit this issue; it may be a matter where we feel we cannot dictate to the individual merchants. We will have to weigh the number offended by the term against the number offended by "censorship", and arrive at our best decision. We welcome further input on both sides of the issue, but request in the strongest terms that members be respectful of each other and the staff during the discussions, and patient on the issue of the merchant's individual (and doubtless difficult) decision."

Careful wording, in my experience, can take one a long, long way toward avoiding blow-ups such as these.

Dear sir, Please, I ask gently. What manner of true thoughts or feelings am I disguising. What makes you think that my personal crusade is a pretense, and what would it be for? And at what point do I state that it is done out of an attempt to represent a silent majority? I have no ulterior motives, nothing to disguise or hide. Nor do I believe I have misled. I attempted to post the thrad -- in violation of TOS -- so that it could be read my all and they could then form their own opinons. Absent that, I did the best I could. Had I not strongly felt this, I would not have gone to such lengths.

thanks, aprilrosanina :)

'What manner of true thoughts or feelings am I disguising. What makes you think that my personal crusade is a pretense, and what would it be for?'

You're not a happy camper because inspite of all your righteous indignation - Renderosity did not censor the name 'Jugs'. I can understand that. It is not true however that the admins turned their backs on you and everyone else who shared your opinion on this matter. This is the impression I believe you're trying to create, i.e., that Renderosity blindly turned away from the outcry of the masses to persue this course of insensitivity because of commercial concerns or whatever.

aprilrosanina has already said it far better than I can - "It is a fine line to walk, and we're treading it as best as we can."

This I believe is a truer representation of the admins attitude regarding this and so I'm wondering why this crusade is continuing?

ynsaen: having been female in the professional world for longer than I would have chosen, I have to offer this not comforting observance: Women, in general, are treated dismissively. If you're absolutely right and totally courageous ... it's worse. They'll destroy (or try like hell) your credibility and professional reputation (by whatever means it takes). It's not a pretty picture and I do not have a remedy (other than ones that will get you 50 to life :)) healing as they may be. I don't know what to do, I've fought it many times and although I've quite a few victories they were at a very high cost (corporations, and this is a corporation) have very long memories :)

With all due respects Movida this is precisely the dissimulation I'm referring too. Nobody was treated dismissively! While it is certainly true that your points are borne out by the everyday experiences of woman in the corporate world this was not the case here and is not the issue.

I'm trying to put it as gently as I can - your side lost out on this one and a decision was made differently than you would have hoped for - maybe even wrongly made. But I believe the admins did seriously consider the opinions offered and this was how they decided.

Or is everyone saying that the admins here are the torchbearers for a continuing campaign of sexism against it's female merchants and members? C'mon now :)

I wasn't commenting on the decision made nor how it was made or presented - I was just offering ynsaen some moral support.

"my" side is no side; I generally vote with the issue at hand :) The "pooh pooh-ing" of womens' opinions is such an established tradition that I don't think anyone but the women feel it. And some of them play Uncle Tom :) You know, check the bank book before you take a stand, never mind what's right or wrong.

Message edited on: 09/25/2004 23:05

Since Rendy is allowing this thread to continue, could someone elaborate a little more how it started? I mean did the merchant in question come forward to ask the merchant community if the name of the product should be changed which then sparked a debate? Or did someone else begin a thread complaining specifically about the "derogatory" word use? For anyone not privy to the merchant forum, it's difficult to voice an honest opinion backing either side without a better understanding of how this all came about. I have a family member who had large breasts at an early age and wanted a reduction procedure done because of how she was teased and treated. I can see how "Hey, there's Juggs" turns into a derogatory remark. But at the same time I think the word for the product in question is being used as a celebration and/or appreciation of a state of being. I think that's where the real problem lies though, because "Juggs" is reducing a person to a body part. I bought the product so what do I know? But would like a better idea of how this evolved

Sorry cant comment because even though they were my thoughts and feelings ,Im not allowed to talk about them. Whether it copying and pasting or speaking about it in my own words im breaking the COC.I cant openly discuss information posted in the private merchant forum.

'"my" side is no side'

Hehehe - I'm sorry Movida, I was referring to everyone who wanted the term 'Juggs' censored from a product name.

'But would like a better idea of how this evolved'

No you wouldn't Finister, be afraid ... be very afraid! lol :) But if you dare: Lordfox began a thread in the Merchant's forum rather pointedly expressing her displeasure of the 'Jenny Juggs' product name. Many people agreed that is was a particularly vulgar name and they wanted it censored. It didn't go that way and well ... hell hath no fury ... [running for cover] :)

Dude you just spoke about shit from the Merchants forum .Exactly what I did to get banned from it ,better edit before u get banned. Im serious.