Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:44 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
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?
  #52  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,391
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.
  #53  
Old 08-10-2019, 06:57 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Per instructions, I am taking this to ATMB, because I think it illustrates the issue here.



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:
I read the posts you quoted.

Many men see women as having inherent value over some random stranger on the street because of their mating potential, as indicated by various secondary sexual characteristics. Were nate to attempt to seek a relationship with one of these women, he might act charming and want to know her as a person, but he wouldn't be bothering if she didn't have clear mate value, as indicated by various characteristics.

So what is the part that offends you, specifically?

Is it the fact that his subconscious mind skips straight to fantasizing about the sex even though the woman is a total stranger that offends you? (this would certain explain but not justify why rapes are so common, if a large percentage of men have similar mental urges)

Or is the discussion of exactly which secondary sexual characteristics?

How could he have phrased how he sees the world in a way that doesn't offend you?

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-10-2019 at 06:58 PM.
  #54  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:01 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,639
I think it’s pretty clear that she does not want many men on the boards to talk frankly about how they see the world around them. Not even in IMHO.
  #55  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:10 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, because that is- exactly what it is. There is a post, you dont like the post, you want it muzzled..
Who said it ought to be muzzled?

People said the specific language used ought to be called out. Including by the mods.

Nobody is saying the overall subject should be muzzled.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
The poster, in his clunky way, was describing what goes through his mind and wondering if his theory that every man thinks this way is valid.

In soliciting such input (in his clunky way) it was necessary to describe these thoughts.
There's no evidence that he was wondering whether his theory is valid. There is specific evidence that he wasn't: as I said just above, in his post 86 in that thread. When he gets evidence from some of the men posting here that contradicts it, he says that they must just be reluctant to admit that they actually react and behave the same way that he does.

Even if he had been actually soliciting input, it wouldn't have been necessary to describe the thoughts in detail.

And even if he had been actually soliciting input, that wouldn't be a reason that the form he chose to do it in couldn't be criticized.

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?
Already done, although as a counterfactual:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
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..
  #56  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,157
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.
  #57  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:13 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 633
And with SamuelA and Slacker joining the conversation, we can probably call this a wrap.
  #58  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,639
Ad hominem much?
  #59  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:27 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
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.
  #60  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:29 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,157
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.
  #61  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:32 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
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 07:33 PM.
  #62  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:33 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
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.
Back when I used to read Penthouse, they were meant to be erotic stories. The OP wasn’t telling an erotic story. He was just trying to get all the men to agree that none of us is able to get our heads around objectifying any attractive woman who appears in front of us.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-10-2019 at 07:33 PM.
  #63  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:34 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
People said the specific language used ought to be called out. Including by the mods.

Nobody is saying the overall subject should be muzzled.
Yes, that's clear, but some people in this thread don't seem to be getting it.

What wasn't clear to me is whether that offensive, objectifying language used by the other thread's OP was the OP reporting the specific words that were going through his head in his own interior monologue, or whether they were his attempt to translate his mental attitudes and reactions into words for our benefit. Although I don't know whether it ultimately makes any difference.
  #64  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,639
Some posters in that thread have said that they think “wow” when they see an attractive, shapely woman—but that they don’t think really explicit, crude sexual thoughts. But many of us do. There is a difference, and I think there has to be some way to express that if we are going to really dig into the topic.
  #65  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:51 PM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,348
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.
  #66  
Old 08-10-2019, 07:53 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Some posters in that thread have said that they think “wow” when they see an attractive, shapely woman—but that they don’t think really explicit, crude sexual thoughts. But many of us do. There is a difference, and I think there has to be some way to express that if we are going to really dig into the topic.
Hm. “When I see a woman I find attractive my mind immediately starts generating explicit sexual thoughts and images that I can’t control and which distract me from whatever else is going on around me, even business I’m conducting or the annoyance of my spouse who is sitting right next to me.”

No “I gotta hit that” and “98 percent of men do it even if they don’t admit it” and no “women can’t understand what it’s like to be a man.”
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #67  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:03 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
There's a lot of repetition here, so I tried to reply to a representative sample. Again and again and again--I don't think the post should have been noted for its topic. I thought it should have been noted because the specific terms (hit that) and gratuitous details (ass cheeks) were in no way needed to make the point and served only to make women participating feel like they had to be on the defensive right from the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutro View Post
I would never use that phrase, but not everyone is that eloquent.
Well, can't we teach them to be? Saying "Hey, dude, we don't use phrases like that" from the moderation staff would go a long way toward helping people find the social norms for this community. I mean, he doesn't talk that way at work, I imagine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, because that is- exactly what it is. There is a post, you dont like the post, you want it muzzled.

We discuss many issues that some find uncomfortable- gay sex, trans issues, murder, gun control, perversions.... trump..... and while I have no issue with anyone finding any of those something they'd rather not read- asking that no one gets to read and mis-labeling it with the label of "misogyny' (which is thrown around here too lightly- along with "racist") is indeed "muzzling" some dudes post.

Lots of issues here, some are uncomfortable. Just dont read those that you find uncomfortable. And don't call something "misogyny" that so clearly isn't.
It's not the issue being discussed. The issue is FINE. The problem is the unnecessary, gratuitous details that objectify women. Can we, as a matter of board culture, move away from that being okay? A lot of us would really like to. What I don't understand is why some of you are holding SO TIGHTLY to the right to say "hit that ass" and "take this in" when talking about actual people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard View Post
The poster, in his clunky way, was describing what goes through his mind and wondering if his theory that every man thinks this way is valid.

In soliciting such input (in his clunky way) it was necessary to describe these thoughts.


mmm
thorny locust addressed this very well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
There's no evidence that he was wondering whether his theory is valid. There is specific evidence that he wasn't: as I said just above, in his post 86 in that thread. When he gets evidence from some of the men posting here that contradicts it, he says that they must just be reluctant to admit that they actually react and behave the same way that he does.

Even if he had been actually soliciting input, it wouldn't have been necessary to describe the thoughts in detail.

And even if he had been actually soliciting input, that wouldn't be a reason that the form he chose to do it in couldn't be criticized.
I would like to hear from the moderation staff on this one at some point.
  #68  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:27 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,639
I’m not saying the OP couldn’t have been worded better. That’s probably true of most posts including my own. But there is a certain slavering horndog mentality that many of us don’t speak about most of the time (just like we don’t talk to many people about the way we wipe — but we have discussed that on this board multiple times) that is interesting and would not be conveyed by the way Acsenray did it. One approach would be to quote hip-hop lyrics and say that “this is the kind of thing that runs through my mind”. Would that be preferable?
  #69  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:39 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I think it’s pretty clear that she does not want many men on the boards to talk frankly about how they see the world around them. Not even in IMHO.
She is explicitly NOT saying this.
  #70  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:42 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,187
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.
  #71  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:43 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,584
I find myself making a similar response to one I made in private before. However, since this was brought up in public, I'll make it in public.

Why does it matter what the other people in the thread are doing? The OP isn't questioning the entire thread, just the behavior of a single individual. What is being debated is whether that behavior should be moderated.

Likewise, shutting the thread down is not your only option. Moderators have other tools at their disposal, and I'd argue that the other tools are better for individual-level infractions. The OP of this thread appears to be asking, not for closure, but for a Mod Note.

In this case, I also add an additional argument: Wasn't this was the agreed upon solution the last time the "female unfriendliness" and "overly sexual talk" was brought up? I thought we all agreed it would be Mod Noted in the future.

There even is a rule: this isn't a Penthouse forum. If a poster is violating that rule, I think they should receive moderator action. The rest of the thread is irrelevant--as, again, you don't have to close the thread.
  #72  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:44 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Who said it ought to be muzzled?

People said the specific language used ought to be called out. Including by the mods.

...:
Which is - muzzling. That's what it is. "You can't say that" or "you cant say that in that way" is muzzling. Asking the Mods to tell him to stop is muzzling.

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-10-2019 at 08:44 PM.
  #73  
Old 08-10-2019, 08:52 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
...
Well, can't we teach them to be? Saying "Hey, dude, we don't use phrases like that" from the moderation staff would go a long way toward helping people find the social norms for this community. I mean, he doesn't talk that way at work, I imagine.



It's not the issue being discussed. The issue is FINE. The problem is the unnecessary, gratuitous details that objectify women. Can we, as a matter of board culture, move away from that being okay? A lot of us would really like to. What I don't understand is why some of you are holding SO TIGHTLY to the right to say "hit that ass" and "take this in" when talking about actual people.



....
Yes, that did objectify women. Not a very nice post.


But it's his opinion. I mean, I hate it when someone says "I like trump and support him- MAGA!", but I will defend his right to post that. I dont like it when someone says "Let's send all the illegals back where they came from!" but I will defend his right to post that.

You can't have free discussion without a right to free expression. His post was within the rules.

I dont like his opinion or the way he expressed it, but that's his right. Of course, you have to right to not read it. Or go into that thread and explain why that post was a immature objectification of females. Or you can block him so you never see his posts again.

But I dont think you have the right to demand no one has the right to see his posts. That you get to decide what is wrong and should not be posted.
  #74  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:05 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
No, a "horndog" is attracted to women. That is not the same thing as liking them. They tend to objectify women, treating them as only valid for their sexual pleasure. "Pick-up artists" are often quite openly misogynistic, and redpillers always are. What you are arguing is like arguing that liking minstrel shows means that you like black people. Objectification is not appreciation.

That said, that's beside the point. You're engaging in a semantic argument. You are fully aware of what the OP means, and you were involved in the threads on the previous moderation of "female unfriendliness." You know the OP is arguing that the same rules that disallow overly sexual talk and making sexual jokes should be applied to this behavior. It is irrelevant what words are used to describe this.

Semantic arguments are rarely useful, and usually a distraction from the main topic. Word choice is not as important as the underlying topics.
  #75  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:08 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, that did objectify women. Not a very nice post.


But it's his opinion. I mean, I hate it when someone says "I like trump and support him- MAGA!", but I will defend his right to post that. I dont like it when someone says "Let's send all the illegals back where they came from!" but I will defend his right to post that.

You can't have free discussion without a right to free expression. His post was within the rules.

I dont like his opinion or the way he expressed it, but that's his right. Of course, you have to right to not read it. Or go into that thread and explain why that post was a immature objectification of females. Or you can block him so you never see his posts again.

But I dont think you have the right to demand no one has the right to see his posts. That you get to decide what is wrong and should not be posted.
To be fair, we're in a message board that is privately owned and the duly appointed representatives of that owner have the power to sanction any poster they want, for any reason or no reason.

Notably, several posters were banned and sanctioned for posts that violate no stated rule.

In fact, technically, Manda Jo is breaking the rules, as this thread is "junior modding". It also contains clear personal insults against a specific poster, in my opinion, and it is outside the pit.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-10-2019 at 09:09 PM.
  #76  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:18 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I’m not saying the OP couldn’t have been worded better. That’s probably true of most posts including my own. But there is a certain slavering horndog mentality that many of us don’t speak about most of the time (just like we don’t talk to many people about the way we wipe — but we have discussed that on this board multiple times) that is interesting and would not be conveyed by the way Acsenray did it. One approach would be to quote hip-hop lyrics and say that “this is the kind of thing that runs through my mind”. Would that be preferable?
No. Sherrerd's version was perfectly clear. I don't think anyone needs to go into graphic detail to convey "horndog-ness". If I can't "get it" from a description like Sherrerd's, I'm not going to get it through poetry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, that did objectify women. Not a very nice post.


But it's his opinion. I mean, I hate it when someone says "I like trump and support him- MAGA!", but I will defend his right to post that. I dont like it when someone says "Let's send all the illegals back where they came from!" but I will defend his right to post that.

You can't have free discussion without a right to free expression. His post was within the rules.
That's exactly what we are discussing. Was it within the rules? Should the rules be changed? We shut down all types of speech on the board. Personal attacks. Thread-shitting. Hate speech. Excessive hijacks. Illegal activities. We have community standards. I think this was right on the line of violating the community standards, and deserved a note; I think the latter post passed community standards and deserved a warning, especially if there had been a note. If it's NOT, then I think we should adjust the rules.

You can say "Let's send all the illegals back where they came from" but you can't or at least shouldn't express it like "they are a bunch of fucking animals and when I see them, all I can think is they should be rendered down into dog food". That would get modded, because our community standard is that we don't talk about people like they were things. This is the same.


Quote:
I dont like his opinion or the way he expressed it, but that's his right. Of course, you have to right to not read it. Or go into that thread and explain why that post was a immature objectification of females. Or you can block him so you never see his posts again.

But I dont think you have the right to demand no one has the right to see his posts. That you get to decide what is wrong and should not be posted.
I'm not demanding anything. I am having a civil discussion. Do you find me shrill?

Last edited by Manda JO; 08-10-2019 at 09:21 PM.
  #77  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:24 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
That's exactly what we are discussing. Was it within the rules? Should the rules be changed? We shut down all types of speech on the board. Personal attacks. Thread-shitting. Hate speech. Excessive hijacks. Illegal activities. We have community standards. I think this was right on the line of violating the community standards, and deserved a note; I think the latter post passed community standards and deserved a warning, especially if there had been a note. If it's NOT, then I think we should adjust the rules.

I'm not demanding anything. I am having a civil discussion. Do you find me shrill?
Which community standard was being violated, perchance? So far you've arguably broken several rules today yourself. That is, if the mods were to enforce every single rule to the maximum extent with no favoritism, you'd be sanctioned as well for your posts.
  #78  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:29 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
...


I'm not demanding anything. I am having a civil discussion. Do you find me shrill?
No, I just disagree with you. Well, not with what you said about the post (which was a little over the top for ATMB, but I understand this is a sore point, and that OP wasnt very mature) , just your demand it be moderated.


I am not a misogynist for doing so am I?
  #79  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:32 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, I just disagree with you. Well, not with what you said about the post (which was a little over the top for ATMB, but I understand this is a sore point, and that OP wasnt very mature) , just your demand it be moderated.


I am not a misogynist for doing so am I?
What demand? I've said I think it should have been moderated. How is that "demanding"? I've no authority here, no leverage. I haven't threatened to take my ball and go home. I'm made some observations.
  #80  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:42 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Which community standard was being violated, perchance? So far you've arguably broken several rules today yourself. That is, if the mods were to enforce every single rule to the maximum extent with no favoritism, you'd be sanctioned as well for your posts.
If you think she's breaking the rules, report her.
  #81  
Old 08-10-2019, 09:57 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
My main takeaway from this thread is that a woman, followed by several women, are saying why the thread under discussion makes them feel uncomfortable, and they’re being told by a bunch of men why they’re wrong.
  #82  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:00 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
She is explicitly NOT saying this.

Sure she is, if the OP in that thread represented the exact thoughts in his mind.


ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
My main takeaway from this thread is that a woman, followed by several women, are saying why the thread under discussion makes them feel uncomfortable, and they’re being told by a bunch of men why they’re wrong.

No one is telling them they are wrong to feel uncomfortable. Only that we don’t agree that in a board called IMHO, they have the right to be protected from ever seeing opinions that make them uncomfortable.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-10-2019 at 10:03 PM.
  #83  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:04 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
My main takeaway from this thread is that a woman, followed by several women, are saying why the thread under discussion makes them feel uncomfortable, and they’re being told by a bunch of men why they’re wrong.
Where did I say they were wrong in that it made them feel uncomfortable? I agreed it could well do that. In fact, I dont see anyone saying that.

What I see is posters saying "Sure it made you uncomfortable, and that's not good, but it didnt need to be moderated"- which is totally different.

Lots of discussions here make people feel uncomfortable.
  #84  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:08 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sure she is, if the OP in that thread represented the exact thoughts in his mind.


ETA:



No one is telling them they are wrong to feel uncomfortable. Only that we don’t agree that in a board called IMHO, they have the right to be protected from ever seeing opinions that make them uncomfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Where did I say they were wrong in that it made them feel uncomfortable? I agreed it could well do that. In fact, I dont see anyone saying that.

What I see is posters saying "Sure it made you uncomfortable, and that's not good, but it didnt need to be moderated"- which is totally different.

Lots of discussions here make people feel uncomfortable.
You must be reading a different thread from me. The thread I’m reading immediately accuses the OP “projecting“, and there are attempts to argue with the woman about the definition of misogyny. I’m guessing the OP has a much better attuned sense of misogyny than a guy reading the dictionary.

There are also discussions about the appropriateness of the thread and IMHO, but that’s not my point.
  #85  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,639
If the definition of misogyny is expanded to include this kind of thing, what word do we use for someone like my cousin? He watches red pill YouTube videos and is constantly fulminating about how evil women are and how they are toxic menaces, and he needs to just “go his own way” (MGTOW) and all that crap. To me, that’s misogyny, not having lascivious fantasies about women.
  #86  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:15 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
You must be reading a different thread from me. The thread I’m reading immediately accuses the OP “projecting“, and there are attempts to argue with the woman about the definition of misogyny. I’m guessing the OP has a much better attuned sense of misogyny than a guy reading the dictionary.

There are also discussions about the appropriateness of the thread and IMHO, but that’s not my point.
Yeah, because it wasnt misogyny. Are you saying your sex determines a words meaning?
  #87  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:24 PM
Trafalgar Laura's Avatar
Trafalgar Laura is offline
Ice Bear, Honey Bear.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 305
I regret my own choice of words in the thread, even if it was with quotes to indicate an imitation of the OP.

I can't deny that people of either gender that I pass by without real interaction (such as talking) do sometimes feel to me more like scenery, but I'm quite aware they're actually people and if I did speak to them, I'd do so without a constant mental stream of "Look at that thing, that thing is amazing!" even if the person in question were the most beautiful woman in the world, wearing the world's shortiest skirt.

I originally tried to word it only in terms of other people who would distract me momentarily for some reason, but felt the post was getting too wordy and complex and needlessly detailed, especially for the subject matter at hand. I probably should have stuck with that, though, or just not gotten involved.

I don't think I would have posted at all, except the thread also seemed to be in some sort of alternate universe where homosexuality doesn't exist. "Women can't understand how attractive women can be!" "Women can participate by describing their reactions to sexy men!" Sigh.

Last edited by Trafalgar Laura; 08-10-2019 at 10:25 PM.
  #88  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:29 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If the definition of misogyny is expanded to include this kind of thing, what word do we use for someone like my cousin? He watches red pill YouTube videos and is constantly fulminating about how evil women are and how they are toxic menaces, and he needs to just “go his own way” (MGTOW) and all that crap. To me, that’s misogyny, not having lascivious fantasies about women.
Having lascivious thoughts about women, and posting about them in detail, are two different things.
  #89  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:32 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 633
Sounds like we need yet another dictionary definition post to clear things up.
  #90  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:46 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
This thread is a reason why I think it was a mistake for the board to go down this road of censoring "misogynistic" threads. There is simply no reason to limit this sort of discussion, even though I find it distasteful. I find many posts and posters distasteful.

This could and should have been handled simply. If you are offended by a poster or by a topic you have several options:

1) Do not participate in the thread.
2) Participate, but debate the poster or post.
3) Pit the poster.

I simply see no reason why a new rule needed to be created when the offended posters have many ways to enjoy their experience here notwithstanding having to share the board with those of different values or opinions.

The cure of the new rule will cause new complaints such as this thread and will never stop until the board decrees that any discussion of women must conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters.
  #91  
Old 08-10-2019, 10:55 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This could and should have been handled simply. If you are offended by a poster or by a topic you have several options:

1) Do not participate in the thread.
2) Participate, but debate the poster or post.
3) Pit the poster.
Don't forget:

4) Find a different internet forum with rules more to your liking. Like r/TwoXChromosomes/ . The mods there would have banned nate for that post.
  #92  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:00 PM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,706
This thread is following a very familiar pattern.
First a poster talks about how a particular post or poster is misogynistic in nature. Then the same few posters* rush in to tell the OP how wrong they are - usually posting many times in a short span. Specific instances are ignored, and the deniers instead talk of vague "political correctness" or "limiting speech" - rather than the particular concern the OP brought up in the first place. Those bringing up concerns of misogyny are basically told to just put up with it, ignore it, or "pit" the offending post or poster.
Round and round. Rather than, say, not tolerating misogynist posts or posters in the first place.

*A half-dozen or so. They're quite active in this very thread.
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #93  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:01 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,852
From Industrial Psychiatry Journal:

Quote:
Misogyny has taken shape in multiple forms such as male privilege, patriarchy, gender discrimination, sexual harassment, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6058438/

Bolding mine. A dictionary definition doesn't describe how misogyny or any other behavior manifests. The post in question was clearly misogynistic.
  #94  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:03 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
From Industrial Psychiatry Journal:



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6058438/

Bolding mine. A dictionary definition doesn't describe how misogyny or any other behavior manifests. The post in question was clearly misogynistic.
Cool. Now which rule of this forum says that misogynism is not allowed? Surely you are going to claim it's hate speech. The stuff Don Draper says to women in his office is misogynistic. The stuff a KKK leader says during a meeting is hate speech. Order of magnitude difference. (and order of magnitude consequences. Sexual harassment or firing or even rape is bad, but a far lesser crime compared to lynching or being dragged to death or having a cross burned in your yard)

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-10-2019 at 11:04 PM.
  #95  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:07 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,852
Rape isn't as bad as having a cross burned in your yard. Gotcha.
  #96  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:11 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This thread is a reason why I think it was a mistake for the board to go down this road of censoring "misogynistic" threads. There is simply no reason to limit this sort of discussion, even though I find it distasteful. I find many posts and posters distasteful.

This could and should have been handled simply. If you are offended by a poster or by a topic you have several options:

1) Do not participate in the thread.
2) Participate, but debate the poster or post.
3) Pit the poster.

I simply see no reason why a new rule needed to be created when the offended posters have many ways to enjoy their experience here notwithstanding having to share the board with those of different values or opinions.

The cure of the new rule will cause new complaints such as this thread and will never stop until the board decrees that any discussion of women must conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters.
I have some sympathy with the notion of an open board, less sympathy for phrases like “conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters”, as though what works for the majority is de facto better. Like it or not, the Dope is in the tricky position of trying to figure out what works effectively for a whole community, which means some moderation...it’s why we have a “don’t be a jerk rule”, which everyone knows is difficult to define, but we live with it. But if you really believe in a message board in which the posters themselves police offensive content by responding (or not) to it, you’ll have to be comfortable with threads that have titles like “Women/black are stupid” etc. Which you might be.
  #97  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:20 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
Rape isn't as bad as having a cross burned in your yard. Gotcha.
Obviously depends on the scenario, but in the most commonly committed rapes, the victim doesn't have a fear of death. Also, the attacker is generally a single man who can be reported and jailed.

While a black family who have a cross burned in their yard have a very reasonable fear that they may all be burned to death or shot by their racist neighbors, and that the police are in on it. Today, it's even more streamlined - all their racist neighbors have to do is call the police, and each encounter is a dice roll against death because everyone now knows the police will kill on a hair trigger.
  #98  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:31 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If the definition of misogyny is expanded to include this kind of thing, what word do we use for someone like my cousin? He watches red pill YouTube videos and is constantly fulminating about how evil women are and how they are toxic menaces, and he needs to just “go his own way” (MGTOW) and all that crap. To me, that’s misogyny, not having lascivious fantasies about women.
Fair point. I wonder if there are any human languages where a single word can have more than one definition?

DrDeth, you're handy with a dictionary. Before you cut and paste the definition for misogyny again (and I assume there's only one, or else you'd mix it up between posts), could you research this question?

Come on, y'all. This is ridiculous. Are you seriously missing the point that referring to women using object pronouns is a shitty thing to do? (Yes, "that" can be used for people, as in the sentence, "That is the tallest toddler I have ever seen in my life"; I trust folks can see the difference between that construction and, "I'd hit that.")

I know women are pissed at this, but honestly as a dude I am, too. Sure, I have sexual thoughts. But it's absurd to think that I can't walk and chew gum at once, and that 98% of dudes are unable to function in society if they see someone they find sexually attractive. Men are more capable than that.

Most men, anyway.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 08-10-2019 at 11:31 PM.
  #99  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Obviously depends on the scenario, but in the most commonly committed rapes, the victim doesn't have a fear of death. Also, the attacker is generally a single man who can be reported and jailed.

While a black family who have a cross burned in their yard have a very reasonable fear that they may all be burned to death or shot by their racist neighbors, and that the police are in on it. Today, it's even more streamlined - all their racist neighbors have to do is call the police, and each encounter is a dice roll against death because everyone now knows the police will kill on a hair trigger.
Oh. Oh, you're serious!

Because this is just bonkers. Has it occurred to you to, y'know, ask any rape survivor or any victim of a cross-burning about your theory? You might consider getting out of your own head.
  #100  
Old 08-10-2019, 11:37 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Oh. Oh, you're serious!

Because this is just bonkers. Has it occurred to you to, y'know, ask any rape survivor or any victim of a cross-burning about your theory? You might consider getting out of your own head.
Fine. So which is worse? Or are they both equally bad? Assuming you cannot order them, then I gave two sets of 3 bad things. One of the bad things overlaps between sets. The other 2 pairings have a clear ordering. Can you tell me which is worse, hate speech or misogyny? Also, are they the same thing or are they different?
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 01:25 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