El 05/05/2015 14:03, "Dmitry Smirnov" <firstname.lastname@example.org> escribió:
> Dear Miriam,
> On Mon, 4 May 2015 13:42:50 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> > And I maintain my use of the word sexualized in this context (you can
> > read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization if you do not
> > understand it). And I have every right to use that word, as I think
> > that it's the proper word to use when a human body is "portrayed in a
> > sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily
> > postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are
> > objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts
> > rather than a whole person)".
> This definition is quite broad but if you quoted only relevant parts then you
> are seems to be misusing this word in this particular context.
Thanks for your calm and argumented answer to my mail. I'm sorry that my reply won't be as lengthly, partially due to lack of time right now, and partially because I'm already half burnt out with all this flame.
I respect your position, even when I might not share it. In any case, I am not personally in charge of that package, so you don't really need to convince me of anything, as I have nothing to do with it, and it is not my responsibility. As things are, it's honestly much safer for me to stay as away of it as I can, and I plan to do that.
Apart from that, I am entitled to have my own opinion on the subject, which is founded and is not arbitrary, and to freely express and argue it, here or in my blog, and I honestly think that I deserve not being referred to in the aggressive and derogatory terms I have seen in some emails. Me and everyone else. Both sides.
So that's all from my side for the moment. Damn, it's hard to write from a tablet, autocorrector sucks. As I said, the package is not on my hands, for good of bad, so all that pressure some are putting on me is unneccessary.