We’ve been working hard to reduce misogyny at the Dope, and have made a lot of progress. Thank you everyone.
I saw this thread about good-looking male celebrities, and I wondered, if we don’t allow (or at least we discourage) this type of thread for women, why do we allow it for men?
I have 2 questions: is this a type of discourse we inherently want to discourage, whomever it’s directed at?
Are men not offended, so this is ok?
I tend to think the rule should be applied equally, but I wanted to throw this out there for the Board to discuss.
I was going to start a thread on that thread & this specific topic a few days ago, but I couldn’t find it, assumed it had been cornfielded. Note that this one did get closed, specifically for being sexist & objectifying the opposite sex in question. Nope, no idea why the double-standard exists.
Women are subjected far more to harassment on the basis of their gender than men are. Misogyny is a serious problem that should be addressed. Misandry is not.
The thread in the OP was a companion thread to one of opposite gender. Both were started while we were still trying to figure out exactly where to draw lines on these sorts of things, and IIRC I think there was an ATMB thread at the time discussing the threads, though I’m not going to try to search for it now.
We aren’t going to close old threads unless they become a problem.
ETA: Actually, looking at the date on the thread, it’s not old enough to be the one I was thinking of. In any event, it’s companion thread wasn’t closed either.
This is a highly liberal message board where the conversations are curated. Here, everyone is (or should be) equal. Therefore, there’s no reason to apply strict rules against objectification to one gender only. Bottom line: this isn’t the real world, so either objectification is okay for everyone or it’s not okay for anyone.
I would say there’s a big difference, regardless of gender, between “Which celebrities do you find hot?” and “Rank these people in order of attractiveness.”
I have no interest in the thread and find it kind of skeevy, but it can’t be compared to a thread about women for the reasons Little Nemo states. The thread doesn’t offend me, but I’m not subject to frequent harassment and reminders that a large portion of society thinks I am inferior. I’d certainly find it offensive if I were subject to such treatment.
I suspect that some men bothered by a thread like that aren’t really offended by the objectification of men; they are more bothered that they aren’t allowed to objectify women. But I won’t complain if all such threads need to be banned based on some (misguided) concept of fairness.
Yeah, that’s another reason the two threads aren’t comparable. At least “who’s hot” puts people on a similar footing, versus ranking which is explicitly drawing attention to someone’s unattractiveness.
If the topic of the thread is: “Who’s the hottest?”, then that should be okay.
Objectifying a person in a thread about baking cookies should NOT be okay.
Jeez, I don’t participate in “who the hottest” threads, but I’d like to think we’re all not such prudes that threads like these have us clutching our pearls.
This isn’t about misogyny or misandry tho, it’s about objectification per se. You may not see it as a double-standard, or even any sort of problem worthy of the slightest examination, but some of us do. I don’t understand how objectification is acceptable towards anyone. You seem to be arguing that we are ok to do so w.r.t. men, until such time that it becomes too much of a problem for them, in service of some sort of nebulous “gotta equalize the scales first!” kind of rationale. I say stop it in its tracks before it becomes an issue. How many threads on objectifying men would you find acceptable, then? “Oh, we just hit thread #24452, that’s enough, scales are equal now, no more such threads on men, now that they’ve been objectified too much!”
But the mod, when closing the other, simply used this rationale: “…we are trying to avoid posts that simply treat women like sex objects and nothing more.”
So, how is a thread about treating men as sex objects and nothing more somehow acceptable, then? Is sexism somehow just a one-way street in such a case?
Annnd are some really going to go down the semantic road to perdition and make some sort of hard line distinction between simple objectification and “ranking”? [Note I have zero interest in participating in such threads, as another annoying post in this thread seemed to suggest]
A guy goes to the Emergency Room with a toothache. He fills out the forms and he’s told to wait and he’ll be seen by the next available doctor.
While he’s waiting, an ambulance pulls up to the door and rushes a patient inside. This guy was in a serious car accident. His legs are crushed; he has broken bones; he’s bleeding internally and externally; and he probably has a bunch of other injuries that haven’t been identified yet. So they rush this guy right into the treatment room and several doctors and nurses immediately begin working on him.
So the first guy stands up and loudly begins complaining, “I was here first. I was told I would be seen next by the doctor. But I’m still sitting here while all of the doctors and nurses are treating that guy. I demand my rights. We’re both sick so we should both get equal treatment. I should have just as many doctors and nurses working one me as that guy has. And I should be seen first.”
Here’s the reality: Not all problems are equal so not all problems deserve equal amount of attention. Small problems do not need or deserve the same amount of attention as big problems. People who only have small problems should be grateful that their problems are small instead of whining that they’re not getting enough attention.
The thread in question had a companion thread of the opposite gender.
We can certainly discuss whether BOTH should be left open or closed, but arguing that the problem here is that we leave one gender open and close the other doesn’t actually match the facts of this situation.
I’m sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Here, in this place, which is most assuredly not the real world, and where there are no resources which need to be prioritised, there’s simply no excuse for treating one group differently to another. It costs nothing, absolutely nothing, to treat men the same as women. Instituting rules forbidding the objectification of men in no way reduces your ability to enforce rules forbidding the objectification of women. So why not do it?
Yes, in the real world, women have to deal with more objectification than men. But again this is notthe real world. This is a highly artificial environment where the only litmus test for whether a rule should be enforced is ”Do our members want it?”. Well, clearly, some members do want a rule barring the objectification of men, and since we already have a rule barring the objectification of women, there’s no reason not to bring one in.
Objectification of men, however, is not a problem. Here or in the “real world.”
There is simply no need to treat one group the same as another group. We don’t need a rule against calling a guy a “dick,” but we do need a rule against calling a woman a “cunt.” How would you articulate a need for such a new rule other than a appeal to “it’s not fair.” What problem is it intended to solve?
The problem is that this now makes moderation a whole lot messier for everyone to understand.
Instead of a consistent rule - “no slurs against someone’s gender” - now it has to be explained as “Slurs are okay against one gender for this reason, but not okay against another gender, for that reason.”
It would be like an NFL official trying to explain why pass interference penalties should be enforced against the Patriots, but not the Browns.
Whether it’s a problem here depends on the men here, some of whom have already said that, actually, it is a problem. You don’t get to speak for them.
Also, why is “It’s not fair” an invalid objection? Even if no men had pointed out the problems with male objectification, what would be wrong with objecting to the double standard on principle? Unfair things are bad. If it costs nothing to get rid of them - and in this case it doesn’t - then we should get rid of them. Otherwise, we’re just perpetuating unfairness for unfairness’ sake, which is stupid and pointless.
It is more subtle, but there definitely is objectification of men, and it usually is accompanied with a put- down.
Some classes of men are objectified for real or imagined physical attributes, but that often includes an ‘animalistic’ or ‘beastly’ vibe that assumes intelligence, character, and grace are inversely proportional. Assigning these perceived values to groups is pervasive and not remarked on or noticed enough, in my opinion.
I think we should distinguish between “Is sexual objectification of male people a problem the way that sexual objectification of women is a problem?”, which is one question, and “Should we deal with the sexual objectification problem on SDMB with a gender-blind rule or only when the objectified people are female folks?”, which is a separate question.
And my own answers, which may differ from yours (but don’t make the distinct questions not good questions):
a) Sexual objectification, or at least the isolated phenomenon of regarding an individual in terms of how appealing they are to your sexual appetite, is not inherently a bad thing. It’s a bad thing when it’s the only way you get viewed. As if that were the sole purpose of your existence. It’s often a bad thing when it gets imposed in a context where you want your ideas, your artistic performance, your athletic accomplishments, etc, to get attention and instead people are focusing on how hot you are (especially if your perceived hotness doesn’t have a damn thing to do with your ideas / artistic chops / athletic prowess).
Men (/male-bodied folk) occasionally get sexually objectified. They seldom get subjected to systematic ongoing sexual objectification. Your mileage as a male-bodied specimen may vary but I haven’t found it to be a problem.
b) I think policy should generally endeavor to make one set of rules and apply them even-handedly. But I don’t know what policy would be best in this case. An outright ban on ever, in any circumstances, discussing the hotness of actual people seems heavy-handed. A ban that includes even hypothetical people (e.g. “What are the bodily contours and visual aspects of a person that you find sexy?”) even more so. On the other hand we don’t want every thread that discusses a female person to end up including a reference to her hotness or lack thereof, and decide that’s just fine and dandy because every once in a while a thread about a male baseball pitcher or singer includes a reference to the guy’s sexual deliciousness. To me it would also make a difference if Poster A makes such a comment once in three years but Poster B makes comment of that nature in every single thread that involves a celebrity of a specific sex.
I think Sunny’s question is a good one and I’ve been pondering it.
I would argue that both should be closed. I think you’ve got equality flipped here. The thread on men isn’t ok simply because there was a similar one on women. In my mind, that’s not the equality we should be aiming for. (BTW, if I’ve misunderstood and they’re both closed, then I apologize. I still view this as a needed discussion.)
John DiFool puts it very well:
Objectification shouldn’t be acceptable for anyone.