Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:43 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473

Misogyny and Moderation, again


Per instructions, I am taking this to ATMB, because I think it illustrates the issue here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Note

To clarify, the OP wasn't given a pass because the resulting discussion ended up being interesting. Everyone's responses in the thread showed that, instead of just shutting down the thread (in which case nate would learn nothing), everyone could instead point out the various issues in the OP and address them, and hopefully nate can actually learn something from all of this.

In any event, discussions about the moderation and whether or not threads should be closed should be in ATMB. If anyone wishes to discuss this further, please start a thread there.
OP starts a thread where he says that when he sees a hot woman with "ass cheeks hanging out", all he can think is that he wants to "hit that".

Rather than give a note that says something like "Hey, dude, we don't talk about women like that here", the burden is put on us to unofficially "educate" him that there's something wrong with talking about women as if they were objects. Spoiler, it didn't work, because in post #86, he was doubling down:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post

[snip]

I see this in me, I see this in my co-workers, I see this everywhere and I don't really understand why some on the SDMB have a problem admitting this. It's not a value judgement. It is an observation. Just admitting that men are ultimately controlled by sex is not a crazy thing. And in fact, if true social progression is to be made, we shouldn't just push this under the rug and demonize it but rather accept that our evolution has brought us here, but also realize our minds give us the ability to rise above not to act on such things.
He's clearly not here to have a conversation. He even goes on to explain:

Quote:
As a (horrid, to some) example, I was driving with my wife in our minivan, stopped at red light and this girl pulled up next to us on a scooter. The way she was sitting, the short shorts she was wearing, her body's shape, I don't know, I couldn't even hold a conversation with my wife even when she was complaining about me being distracted by her... it's like it didn't matter to me, I couldn't bypass it, I had to just take in the sight of this and I didn't care how irritated my wife was. I know I sound like a real winner, but I'm just being honest.
Understand, when women read this story, we are the wife, and the girl on the scooter, being oogled by a dude who has apparently lost control of his mind and who has reduced the sight of her, of US, to the "sight of this". It's a creepy story. Whatever the intent, it has the effect of serving as a stark reminder that for many, we are only interesting, we only matter, when we make someone's dick twitch. And all the lurid details aren't there to help us understand what happened--it at least comes across as an excuse to linger on the memory: recounting it makes his parts warm in memory and he wants to humble-brag about his virile experience. And we all know this. Can you imagine telling that story in any sort of mixed company? At a work function? A back-yard BBQ with women present? At a bus stop to your dude best friend where women could hear you?

The OPs behavior is creepy and uncouth and makes women uncomfortable. But the powers that be have decided that it's our job to "educate" assholes and creeps--there apparently can't be any official guidance.

And it DOES shut down discussion. Because now before I can participate in the thread, I have to FIRST address the misogyny. Women end up stuck in the meta, arguing about how something was said instead of the content, because we can't just let the meta go--it's exclusionary, and so we have to address that it exists in order to even be clear where we are coming from when we comment on the content. THEN we get bogged down in an argument about whether or not it's misogynistic to say "I just want to hit that" because apparently that's controversial.

Last edited by Manda JO; 08-10-2019 at 12:48 PM.
  #2  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:48 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
...Rather than give a note that says something like "Hey, dude, we don't talk about women like that here"....
That poster was not talking about women. He was talking about himself.
  #3  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:01 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,781
Speaking just for myself, I was/am glad that thread was allowed to stay open, because I found many of the responses—including yours, Manda JO—useful and enlightening.

I think here on the SDMB we have a "mission" of fighting ignorance and edifying each other, but we also don't want to promote a hostile or alienating environment. And I think sometimes, like in that thread, those two values can clash. Speaking just for myself (as a man), I thought the good in that thread easily outweighed the bad. I found it helpful for the "Here is what goes on in some people's heads" and "Here is what other people think about what those people think, and why" kinds of perspectives. But I can see how others might feel differently.

Last edited by Thudlow Boink; 08-10-2019 at 01:03 PM.
  #4  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:51 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Speaking just for myself, I was/am glad that thread was allowed to stay open, because I found many of the responses—including yours, Manda JO—useful and enlightening.
I'm going with this and adding a little something for myself. If a Mod had stepped in and closed it within the first couple posts I would have not argued the point. But this was one of those rare cases where an OP I didn't care for at all developed into a fairly interesting thread. As others have said in various ways, ignorance was fought on several different levels. At least for my reading/education and participation here it may be a far better thread than the majority of what I come across in general.
  #5  
Old 08-10-2019, 12:54 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
As the "that" in "hit that" and the "this" in "i just had to take this in", I disagree.
  #6  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
I think you're doing a whole lot of projecting. How do leap from "some girl made my dick twitch" to "women only have value if they make my dick twitch"?
  #7  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:17 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,001
I agree that it was good to leave it open. I found the discussion interesting.
  #8  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,468
Being a horndog is not the same thing as being a misogynist. You can be a testosterone laden jerk and still not be a misogynist.


As has been said "You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it does."



mi·sog·y·nist
....

noun
1.
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
synonyms: woman-hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, male supremacist, chauvinist, sexist; More
adjective
.

Now, I dont see any hatred towards women in that OP. Nor "woman-hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, or male supremacist," but perhaps sexist, maybe.

In fact the Op seems to genuinely admire women- perhaps for the wrong reasons, but certainly no "hatred".


A male being a classless horndog is perhaps being a jerk, likely clueless, and quite likely annoying- but that doesn't make him a hater of women.
  #9  
Old 08-10-2019, 05:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Being a horndog is not the same thing as being a misogynist. You can be a testosterone laden jerk and still not be a misogynist.


As has been said "You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it does."



mi·sog·y·nist
....

noun
1.
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
synonyms: woman-hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, male supremacist, chauvinist, sexist; More
adjective
.

Now, I dont see any hatred towards women in that OP. Nor "woman-hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, or male supremacist," but perhaps sexist, maybe.

In fact the Op seems to genuinely admire women- perhaps for the wrong reasons, but certainly no "hatred".


A male being a classless horndog is perhaps being a jerk, likely clueless, and quite likely annoying- but that doesn't make him a hater of women.

Completely agree. But many people do use it that way. Of course, words can change meanings, but when they change really quickly in some people’s usage without universal or near universal agreement, the rest of us don’t just have to meekly go along with a new meaning—particularly when it is so at odds with the plain meaning of the word. (Another example is in the incel PIt thread where someone said that incels aren’t celibate anymore! )

Another thing I would like to push back on is the idea that this place is akin to a dinner party or barbecue. There are too many people who strongly dislike each other for that to make much sense. Maybe it’s more like a bar where people can get thrown out for wildly incivil behavior, but do not have to be invited, do not have to even be liked by most of the other patrons.

Or at least that’s the nature of the place I joined all those years ago. If it becomes something different from that (which I have previously expressed concern that it shows signs of becoming), then there are going to be several longtime posters (me, certainly; but also others for various reasons) who will be pointedly left off the invitation list.
  #10  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:30 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I agree that it was good to leave it open. I found the discussion interesting.
What I really would have liked is a mod note on the first post and a warning on the second--though the second might not have happened if their had been a mod note on the first.

But apparently we can't mod that sort of thing--it's been discussed to death. Look how careful engineer_comp_geek is here not to actually condemn nate's behavior:


Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Note



[snip]

Second, while the OP certainly has some issues, I think overall everyone has done very well with this thread. I think the best thing to do under the circumstances is just to let the thread continue. Hopefully nate will take the time to carefully read all of the responses, both to understand why his response is not the same as 98% of males out there, and also to understand why many in this thread are finding his post to be so offensive.
See how passive that is? "understand why many in this thread are finding his post to be so offensive". If I were hosting a party and someone said "Man, I get so distracted by ass. All I can think is "I want to hit that", I wouldn't get bogged down by "some may find your remarks offensive". That's weasel words. That's "it's not my place to say if this is offensive"

Quote:
We really do not want to encourage posts along the lines of "women make me want to have sex", and we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why. But if we can have more discussions like this one where people actually explain the issues and try to give some enlightenment and understanding to those who are clearly lacking in it, I think that's actually a good thing.
Here, again, focusing entirely on whether the issue/topic might be interesting, and nothing about the offensive way it was phrased. No suggestion demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying idioms are a problem at all.

And, again, the topic was fine--though I don't think the OP wanted to do anything but get off by telling stories about his incredibly masculine response to female bodies. But again and again and again in these threads the topic is all that is evaluated: the phrasing doesn't even register to the mods.
  #11  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:53 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
... Look how careful engineer_comp_geek is here not to actually condemn nate's behavior:

... That's weasel words. That's "it's not my place to say if this is offensive"
You are somehow reading an intent into my words that isn't actually there. I was not using weasel words or saying that it's not my place to say if this is offensive.

My intent with "the OP certainly has some issues" was to agree that the OP is offensive without taking the time to actually spell out what was offensive, since that seemed to me to be clearly stated in other posts. "... to understand why many in this thread are finding his post to be so offensive" is addressing the posts in the thread, and is saying that I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).

My point with "We really do not want to encourage posts along the lines of "women make me want to have sex", and we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here. You state that there is " No suggestion demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying idioms are a problem at all." when in fact I am explicitly saying the exact opposite of that. Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.

The OP is not being given a pass. The OP is clearly offensive.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 08-10-2019 at 01:56 PM.
  #12  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:30 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
My intent with "the OP certainly has some issues" was to agree . . . is saying that I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).

My point with "We really do not want to encourage posts along the lines of "women make me want to have sex", and we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here. You state that there is " No suggestion demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying idioms are a problem at all." when in fact I am explicitly saying the exact opposite of that. Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.
ecg, I'm very confused here and I hope you can clarify.

Here in this thread, you made the statements above. I bolded three parts.

First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?

Second, you stated, “we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.

Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.

As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.
  #13  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:33 AM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,978
Libido

Libido (/lɪˈbiːdoʊ/; colloquial: sex drive) is a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity. Libido is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors

The alleged offender attempted to convey male human libido exists - which is partly a biological function is “misogynistic” now, seriously ?

The alleged offender wasn't even particularly nasty or crass about trying to convey that, except for maybe admitting not being able to do so discretely without upsetting his wife. But he is right, that urge is in most males. Without it we'd be extinct as a species. Libido is different for men than women. But we both have it, even some women feel the same believe it or not when it comes to certain men. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Now I'll expect a chorus of self-identifying SD males saying that they never have those urges. All obvious outliers then for a variety of reasons, but that's not how you reach an true consensus by a sampling of a biased source anyways.

Homo sapiens have been humping each other for over 200,000 years. There's a biological component that's taken root over that time that cannot be suddenly be erased because some people find it offensive, science doesn't work that way. If people want it banned because it's offensive to sex-negative feminism I guess that's a different topic.

Also if people stop threatening to leave the SD + that be great. Just leave or get involved in a discussion you don't agree with, start one, but stop complaining to the mods every time it comes up asking them to bring down the hammer on your behalf because it's offensive.

I too find some subjects offensive on this site. The term white males is always usually brought up with derision and snark. I recently saw a thread on what makes up a man-child the other day, whereas if there was similar thread say what makes up a gold-digger I have no doubt it would have been nuked. I had a choice to engage in the thread, pit them or complain to the mods. I did none of that, instead took my dog out for a walk.
  #14  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:00 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
ecg, I'm very confused here and I hope you can clarify.

Here in this thread, you made the statements above. I bolded three parts.

First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I'm not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I'm saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?

Second, you stated, “we definitely do not want to encourage men's locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.

Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.

As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.
I am still unclear why there wasn't a mod note for the language but your other questions seem off line. You really think a mod note should have been given because nate didn't learn his lesson quick enough? And I think the locker room talk he refers to is threads where guys are saying stuff like "That Kathy Ireland had great eyebrows. I could put those to good use, if you know what I mean!" not something as generic as nate's "pretty girls make me think of sex".
  #15  
Old 08-10-2019, 01:54 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
If I were hosting a party and someone said "Man, I get so distracted by ass. All I can think is "I want to hit that", I wouldn't get bogged down by "some may find your remarks offensive". That's weasel words. That's "it's not my place to say if this is offensive"
If you were hosting a party and someone said that, and several other guests called him out on it, how much responsibility do you have as host to do something?
  #16  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:20 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
You are somehow reading an intent into my words that isn't actually there. I was not using weasel words or saying that it's not my place to say if this is offensive.
[snip]
The OP is not being given a pass. The OP is clearly offensive.
Do you see how it might look like you are? Especially to a poster who doesn't think he is being offensive, and who has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he thinks other people are lying when they don't "admit" what he knows to be true? And to women, do you see how you might look like you are being careful to take a neutral stance on what should be clearcut?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
If you were hosting a party and someone said that, and several other guests called him out on it, how much responsibility do you have as host to do something?
Hell, yes. It's my house. I set the tone.
  #17  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:38 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
If you were hosting a party and someone said that, and several other guests called him out on it, how much responsibility do you have as host to do something?
If you are hosting a party, it's absolutely your responsibility.

If someone says something offensive at a party and no one does anything about it, it's your responsibility as a host to tell them that this sort of thing isn't appropriate at your party, they are making the other guests uncomfortable, and to please stop it.

If someone says something offensive at a party and everyone around him says "dude, not cool", then perhaps the appropriate response for the host is just to acknowledge the situation so that everyone knows the host at least knows that the guy did something wrong, and to keep an eye on the situation to see if the guy got the message from his peers. Or perhaps not. That's exactly why we are having this discussion here.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 08-10-2019 at 02:39 PM.
  #18  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:07 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post

If someone says something offensive at a party and everyone around him says "dude, not cool", then perhaps the appropriate response for the host is just to acknowledge the situation so that everyone knows the host at least knows that the guy did something wrong, and to keep an eye on the situation to see if the guy got the message from his peers. Or perhaps not. That's exactly why we are having this discussion here.
Exactly. And in my mind when someone says something really egregious and the host's response is something like "Well, Bob has 'some issues' but I hope he will see why 'some people' are offended by his words", it seems like the host is trying to just chill things out without offending either side. The host isn't offended, just aware that "some people" might be. You comments didn't let me know you thought nate did anything wrong--just that you knew we did.

And the later post, about "taking that in", where "that" is a person, is awful. To me, that suggests the OP didn't get it at all.

Last edited by Manda JO; 08-10-2019 at 03:07 PM.
  #19  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:08 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
If you are hosting a party, it's absolutely your responsibility.

If someone says something offensive at a party and no one does anything about it, it's your responsibility as a host to tell them that this sort of thing isn't appropriate at your party, they are making the other guests uncomfortable, and to please stop it.

If someone says something offensive at a party and everyone around him says "dude, not cool", then perhaps the appropriate response for the host is just to acknowledge the situation so that everyone knows the host at least knows that the guy did something wrong, and to keep an eye on the situation to see if the guy got the message from his peers. Or perhaps not. That's exactly why we are having this discussion here.
Meanwhile, one or more women feel really uncomfortable with the dude and the lack of any meaningful response to him and leave the party.
  #20  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:14 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,438
I’m with Manda and Helena here. There were a dozen different ways to approach the topic without the gratuitous details that served nothing more than to highlight just how sexualizing he finds these experiences and how objectified the women are in his posts. Frankly, it veered into Penthouse territory, IMHO.

I think Manda Jo put it very well, as the “that” and the “this” in his descriptions, the effect on women readers absolutely becomes relevant.

That male posters don’t see it that way isn’t relevant- that’s kind of the point. No one is accusing the OP of purposefully trying to be objectifying and demeaning- that it could be just isn’t on his radar and no one is making him accept that maybe it should be.
  #21  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
The whole point of the thread was to discuss how sexualizing he finds these experiences but you think it was out of place for him to highlight just how sexualizing he finds these experiences. Oookay.
  #22  
Old 08-10-2019, 03:51 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The whole point of the thread was to discuss how sexualizing he finds these experiences but you think it was out of place for him to highlight just how sexualizing he finds these experiences. Oookay.
That's what we've been protesting for MONTHS.. How objectifying, demeaning, and hostile women find it when men post what gets their dicks hard! That was Manda JO's, ITD's, and my entire point.

  #23  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:44 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
That's what we've been protesting for MONTHS.. How objectifying, demeaning, and hostile women find it when men post what gets their dicks hard! That was Manda JO's, ITD's, and my entire point.

Could you rewrite the OP into a form that is acceptable to you, then, so we can see how this poster could have expressed his feelings in an acceptable manner?
  #24  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Wow. I dont know what Op you read...
Same one. It was a 'hey, guys, you're with me on this, right?' message that carried the underlying assumption that We Have Every Right To Assert This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Could you rewrite the OP into a form that is acceptable to you, then, so we can see how this poster could have expressed his feelings in an acceptable manner?
Hypothetically, a man is concerned that he's losing some control over his rationality due to his response to seeing an attractive woman in revealing clothing.

So he could post:

Quote:
The other day I had an experience I have all the time--and I'm trying to figure out if this is just something I have to live with, or if there's some other way I could be responding. Is this the way it is for all men? some men? What?

So I was out minding my own business, driving with my wife somewhere, and this young woman drives up on a scooter. She was very attractive and not fully covered with clothing, you might say. So immediately she was all I could think about.

My wife noticed and was annoyed. And I felt as though I wasn't fully in control of myself---and I don't like that feeling. Sure, it's normal to be attracted to attractive people. We're only human. But this is a degree of obsession that bothers me.

So is this the experience of all men? Some? What's going on?
(made-up post)

Instead what became the foundation of that thread was a sort of humble-brag, as someone else posted. The underlying tone was 'LOOK HOW TESTOSTERONE-LADEN I AM!' And also 'I AM A MAN AND I DON'T APOLOGIZE!'

It was a chest-thumping post disguised as a search for information.
  #25  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:27 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Same one. It was a 'hey, guys, you're with me on this, right?' message that carried the underlying assumption that We Have Every Right To Assert This.

Hypothetically, a man is concerned that he's losing some control over his rationality due to his response to seeing an attractive woman in revealing clothing.

So he could post:

(made-up post)

Instead what became the foundation of that thread was a sort of humble-brag, as someone else posted. The underlying tone was 'LOOK HOW TESTOSTERONE-LADEN I AM!' And also 'I AM A MAN AND I DON'T APOLOGIZE!'

It was a chest-thumping post disguised as a search for information.
Thanks for the rephrasing and explaining how this poster could have expressed himself.
  #26  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:29 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Thanks for the rephrasing and explaining how this poster could have expressed himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Could you rewrite the OP into a form that is acceptable to you, then, so we can see how this poster could have expressed his feelings in an acceptable manner?
So now you don't want anyone to address your question? It's a bit unclear.
  #27  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:32 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
So now you don't want anyone to address your question? It's a bit unclear.
It's already been answered. And I don't really expect a real answer from Mandy Jo, I hold a negative opinion about that poster. I think now that the OP isn't resulting in the desired sanctions to nate, that she will not continue the conversation further.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-10-2019 at 08:33 PM.
  #28  
Old 08-12-2019, 11:22 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
OP starts a thread where he says that when he sees a hot woman with "ass cheeks hanging out", all he can think is that he wants to "hit that".

Rather than give a note that says something like "Hey, dude, we don't talk about women like that here", the burden is put on us to unofficially "educate" him that there's something wrong with talking about women as if they were objects. Spoiler, it didn't work, because in post #86, he was doubling down:



He's clearly not here to have a conversation. He even goes on to explain:



Understand, when women read this story, we are the wife, and the girl on the scooter, being oogled by a dude who has apparently lost control of his mind and who has reduced the sight of her, of US, to the "sight of this". It's a creepy story. Whatever the intent, it has the effect of serving as a stark reminder that for many, we are only interesting, we only matter, when we make someone's dick twitch. And all the lurid details aren't there to help us understand what happened--it at least comes across as an excuse to linger on the memory: recounting it makes his parts warm in memory and he wants to humble-brag about his virile experience. And we all know this. Can you imagine telling that story in any sort of mixed company? At a work function? A back-yard BBQ with women present? At a bus stop to your dude best friend where women could hear you?

The OPs behavior is creepy and uncouth and makes women uncomfortable. But the powers that be have decided that it's our job to "educate" assholes and creeps--there apparently can't be any official guidance.

And it DOES shut down discussion. Because now before I can participate in the thread, I have to FIRST address the misogyny. Women end up stuck in the meta, arguing about how something was said instead of the content, because we can't just let the meta go--it's exclusionary, and so we have to address that it exists in order to even be clear where we are coming from when we comment on the content. THEN we get bogged down in an argument about whether or not it's misogynistic to say "I just want to hit that" because apparently that's controversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
Meanwhile, one or more women feel really uncomfortable with the dude and the lack of any meaningful response to him and leave the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
That's what we've been protesting for MONTHS.. How objectifying, demeaning, and hostile women find it when men post what gets their dicks hard! That was Manda JO's, ITD's, and my entire point.

I'm very much with Manda JO and Helena330 here.

Fighting ignorance doesn't include a need for us guys to talk about what behavior or appearance on the part of women makes us feel good in our nether regions. There's no reason I can see why the mods can't just say, "dude, we don't talk about women like that here." We have a fair number of really smart women who add a great deal to many conversations here through their posts. I don't like the fact that they feel this site is hostile to them in this way, and I don't want this sorta shit to drive them away.

This is one of those situations where 'both sides have a point' perpetuates the shit that only one side is on the receiving end of. My vote is to have it be board policy: we don't talk about women like that around here. It's really just a specific case of the board's Prime Directive: don't be a jerk.
  #29  
Old 08-10-2019, 04:15 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The whole point of the thread was to discuss how sexualizing he finds these experiences but you think it was out of place for him to highlight just how sexualizing he finds these experiences. Oookay.
Yes. When it’s done in a manner that’s demeaning and objectifying.

If people can be asked to insult the argument, not the poster;

If people can be asked to discuss breaking news without political hijacks;

If people can be asked to express anger without using hate language they can be asked to do this too.

Last edited by IvoryTowerDenizen; 08-10-2019 at 04:16 PM.
  #30  
Old 08-10-2019, 04:50 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
I agree he used objectifying language and I'm not defending that but you shouldn't mix up the issues by complaining that he highlighted just how sexualizing he finds these experiences when you are really complaining about the objectifying. These issues can be complicated enough without that sloppiness.

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-10-2019 at 04:52 PM.
  #31  
Old 08-10-2019, 05:03 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I agree he used objectifying language and I'm not defending that but you shouldn't mix up the issues by complaining that he highlighted just how sexualizing he finds these experiences when you are really complaining about the objectifying. These issues can be complicated enough without that sloppiness.
This is a really weird thing to say, much less be preachy about. Objectification is sexualizing things inappropriately. You're policing which synonyms are best.
  #32  
Old 08-10-2019, 05:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
This is a really weird thing to say, much less be preachy about. Objectification is sexualizing things inappropriately. You're policing which synonyms are best.
No, I'm not; you are failing to understand the conversation. The language used was objectifying, which isn't cool. The subject of the thread was sexualizing every encounter with an attractive woman, which is Kosher subject matter.

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-10-2019 at 05:47 PM.
  #33  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:40 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,361
The OP of the thread in question didn't say that he has trouble concentrating on anything other than sex when in the presence of women, ask whether other men have this problem, and ask how to deal with it so that he can manage to get a day's work done in a society that doesn't lock women up out of the way someplace but instead considers us to be a normal part of the workplace, the marketplace, the traffic on the streets, and overall life in general. That's a question that could have been discussed in a reasonable fashion.

In order to ask that question it would be in no way necessary to discuss specific parts of women's bodies, and it would certainly not be in any way necessary to refer to women as "this" or "that". Nor would it make sense, if it were a genuine question, to respond to those men who've disagreed with him by saying (in post 86 in that thread) that they can't really disagree and ought to just admit that he's right.

It would also certainly not be necessary to insist that almost all other men are controlled entirely by their sexuality, to the point of being unable to stop themselves from ogling women on the street while the men are driving and also to the point of being unable to hold a sensible conversation even when it's important to do so.

The OP does not appear to be asking a question, or to be asking for help. The OP is, whether or not intentionally, insulting both women (by calling us things, and by saying that our bodies automatically overwhelm anything we might be saying and anything else we might be doing) and other men (by insisting that men in general are unable to control their sexual desires sufficiently to keep their attention on anything else.)


-- wolfpup, I am myself very far from being driven away. But when there are women telling you that women are being driven away by this sort of thing, calling that idea "silly" is most certainly not going to help.
  #34  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:55 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
... The OP does not appear to be asking a question, or to be asking for help. The OP is, whether or not intentionally, insulting both women (by calling us things, and by saying that our bodies automatically overwhelm anything we might be saying and anything else we might be doing) and other men (by insisting that men in general are unable to control their sexual desires sufficiently to keep their attention on anything else.)

-- wolfpup, I am myself very far from being driven away. But when there are women telling you that women are being driven away by this sort of thing, calling that idea "silly" is most certainly not going to help.
The opening post in question was that thing very common in most societies on the planet: an assertion of being a member of the dominant group. I get to do what I want with the bodies of my inferiors, and we're all able to do what we want with those bodies, and isn't it great, my brothers! Let's relax and talk some tits and ass!

And some of the defenses of the OP amount to 'why should there be any challenges to my right to do as I please? Can't I just feel comfortable with my peers, talking up the bodies of those below us? Can't we just do as we please without any nagging? Why does there has to be this demand that we think about such things? What is wrong with women that they are always pestering us about this stuff? Why are they so silly?'

Why can't they just relax and chill?

Etc.
  #35  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Maybe this is a tangential question better suited for its own thread, but I do find interesting the tenor of some of the posts that say (paraphrasing) “this place used to be just overrun with bad stuff, and if we don’t police it very carefully, it will be like that again”. It just seems odd that they want to tell a large swath of the board not to let the place be anything like the way it was in its formative years. It goes beyond saying that the board culture has changed as older posters have left (or died or whatever) and newer people have come in. To say that it will go right back to the way it was if it’s not nipped in the bud is to say that you want the sensibilities of a minority of the board to police what is acceptable for the majority.
  #36  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Maybe this is a tangential question better suited for its own thread, but I do find interesting the tenor of some of the posts that say (paraphrasing) “this place used to be just overrun with bad stuff, and if we don’t police it very carefully, it will be like that again”. It just seems odd that they want to tell a large swath of the board not to let the place be anything like the way it was in its formative years. It goes beyond saying that the board culture has changed as older posters have left (or died or whatever) and newer people have come in. To say that it will go right back to the way it was if it’s not nipped in the bud is to say that you want the sensibilities of a minority of the board to police what is acceptable for the majority.
The board is slowly and inevitably losing population. From earlier threads/polls it seems true that it's losing women population faster. There has always been a majority male population and the early days were not nearly as "woke" a time and there were much fewer internet forum options. At the same time, the "Men's rights movement" has become thing.

So I don't know who is saying it will go back to the way it was but they're wrong. We will have less women, and men, willing to put up with "locker room talk" than there was then. We will have more trolling incels than there was before. There's no going back even if the majority wants everyone to chillax on the misogyny concerns.

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-10-2019 at 07:15 PM.
  #37  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The board is slowly and inevitably losing population. From earlier threads/polls it seems true that it's losing women population faster. ..... There's no going back even if the majority wants everyone to chillax on the misogyny concerns.
Got facts?

And- don't mis-use that word. There was no misogyny in that OP. Might as well call him a racist too.
  #38  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Got facts?

And- don't mis-use that word. There was no misogyny in that OP. Might as well call him a racist too.
I'll look it up, but I found a couple of poll threads on gender from like ten years ago (both within months of each other) and a couple of more current ones. The old ones agreed closely with each other and so did the current one - there was a significantly lower female percentage in the current ones. DSeid started an ATMB thread using them a while back.

There was misogyny in the OP. It used objectifying language. So you're just wrong. The only defense is that it was an honest description of what is really going through his head and as such, a matter for discussion.
  #39  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
...
There was misogyny in the OP. It used objectifying language. So you're just wrong.
That's not misogyny .

I defined misogynist earlier:


mi·sog·y·nist
....
noun
1.
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
synonyms: woman-hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, male supremacist, chauvinist, sexist;
...

Being a horndog means you like women, just that you dont express that in a mature way.

That Op was immature, sure, but not a misogynist. You're not Humpty Dumpty.
  #40  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:38 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,585
What I see here is the uncomfortable balance between being able to discuss an offensive subject and showing tolerance for it.

Let’s say the subject was something more extreme, like pedophelia. A person expresses that little girls and boys just do it for him and he has trouble not being distracted. Maybe he has never actually molested a child, and swears he never will, but he always feels sexual looking at them.

Most people would find that offensive. Horribly offensive. I would, certainly. Can an interesting discussion be held about it? Maybe. But the topic is so unpalatable to most people that it’s difficult. And the question comes up about whether allowing those kinds of comments is showing a tolerance for them, or whether it’s necessary to allow them so they can be talked about.

I honestly don’t know where you draw the line. It’s complicated. How much do you put up with in the name of fighting ignorance and to allow the freedom of discussion?
  #41  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:42 PM
neutro is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I honestly don’t know where you draw the line. It’s complicated. How much do you put up with in the name of fighting ignorance and to allow the freedom of discussion?
Well I would think a place called "the straight dope" would draw the line further into uncomfortable territory than say the table at a dinner party. I'm not sure being uncomfortable is a problem. There is a huge difference between saying something offensive generally vs saying something to a specific person about them.

This is really a board philosophy thing end of day. I'm too new to really have an opinion but I would push for being "allowed" to discuss uncomfortable topics.
  #42  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:49 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post

This is really a board philosophy thing end of day. I'm too new to really have an opinion but I would push for being "allowed" to discuss uncomfortable topics.
How important do you think it is to be allowed to use phrases like "I'd like to hit that ass" when discussing these topics?
  #43  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:09 PM
neutro is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
How important do you think it is to be allowed to use phrases like "I'd like to hit that ass" when discussing these topics?
I would never use that phrase, but not everyone is that eloquent.
  #44  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:26 PM
Mean Mr. Mustard's Avatar
Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
How important do you think it is to be allowed to use phrases like "I'd like to hit that ass" when discussing these topics?
Read his OP again. He is describing the thoughts that go through his (and, according to him, other guys') mind upon seeing an attractive woman.

He is not saying, "Hey, Dopers, I'd like to hit that ass!"

Before you wave this away, consider that I acknowledge that this is a fine - but important - distinction.


mmm
  #45  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:40 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,438
It’s not the topic that offensive. The topic is fine.

It’s the way the topic was spelled out in objectifying detail, which was unnecessary for the discussion of the topic.
  #46  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
1. Pedophilia is much rarer.

2. If a horndog fantasy about an adult woman becomes consensual reality, there is no crime in that, no moral abomination. Not true about a fantasy of having sex with a child. Not even if the child is “into it” (puke).
  #47  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:32 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,961
I'm thinking that if one has no problem being described as a "horndog", one should not be surprised if the topic of muzzling comes up.
  #48  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:35 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I endorse posts 42 and 43, and would accentuate the point by noting that no one is presumably saying that Manda Jo shouldn’t speak up and express her disgust with a post she doesn’t like, just like I might express disgust if someone defended Sean Hannity. But that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that someone would not be allowed to endorse Hannity’s worldview.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-10-2019 at 07:36 PM.
  #49  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I endorse posts 42 and 43, and would accentuate the point by noting that no one is presumably saying that Manda Jo shouldn’t speak up and express her disgust with a post she doesn’t like, just like I might express disgust if someone defended Sean Hannity. But that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that someone would not be allowed to endorse Hannity’s worldview.

Of course, she has every right to say that "guys" post is disgusting. And, I think I made it clear I didn't approve of it either, with terms like classless horndog, clueless, etc.

Hannity.
  #50  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:40 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,001
I said earlier that I was comfortable with the thread, but that's not completely accurate. I appreciated most of the responses and that they were mostly from male members. It is reassuring to me to learn that nate's behavior and thought are not the norm.

Manda JO and the others are right. The topic could have been discussed in appropriate language. I was wrong to fail to make that distinction sooner.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017