You got that right. I sure as hell would never be able to mod around here these days.
And I stand by my assertion in the “hot guys” thread. 1967 Patrick McGoohan would not get kicked out of my bed.
Also, Mary Ann. And Veronica.
???
It is part of being a celebrity to be attractive, thus this sort of thing is legit. It’s when it spills over into everything that it needs to be stopped.
And the PtB here have been good about that, recently.
Celebrities** live* to be objectified. Why should we not give them what they want? They pay good money to make sure they are.
- TV, Film, etc
He seems to be saying why would someone call women women but men ‘male people’.
You’re not participating in a virtual reality simulation. You’re having discussions with real people. This is the real world.
Considering that the interaction real people are having here is all communication, it seems like this is the exact place where enforcing rules about communication is most applicable.
I don’t recall any suggestion that this board has based its rules on popularity. This isn’t a democracy and we don’t vote for moderators or administrators. If the board has a guiding principle, it’s to enforce a set of rules that encourage conversation between people. And part of that is squelching the assholes who ruin it for everyone else. It adds nothing of value to a conversation about American politics to have somebody saying that he thinks Kathleen Rice is hotter than Elise Stefanik; that kind of conversation just drives away any other conversation.
So, basically, punching up is okay then? “Don’t be a jerk” doesn’t apply when the subject is male, white, middle class, heterosexual, conventionally attractive, or a “normie?”
It’s not like there’s only so much moderation to go around, and that moderators have to do triage. There should be mutual respect on all sides. Everybody should feel welcome — women and men. Protecting one group while leaving another vulnerable also seems patronizing.
FWIW, I call myself a “Bill Maher liberal.” I’m no right wing incel neckbeard “pwn the libs” type.
Since when is “adding value” a requirement for a post on the SDMB? If that were the case, thousands would have been suspended for pointless Monty Python nonsequiturs. Likewise, a post about which senator has a bigger bulge in their pants would add nothing too, but it seems like that’s fine, because men.
Using the Oppression Olympics as a yardstick in moderation is no way to run a message board. Just my opinion.
Altho the first part is correct, the second part is pretty damn sexist.
For example- while it is true that women are more often the victims of domestic violence, and usually the damage on them is much more severe- men can be the victims also, and to a surprising extent. That is why we dont call it wife beating now, we call it domestic violence or *spousal abuse. *
So sure, Misogyny is by far the bigger problem, we should not routinely ignore or perform Misandry.
I myself don’t have a problem with much of that thread. Describing who you find attractive and why doesn’t seem like it should be inherently verboten. Not in a thread dedicated to the topic, as opposed to comments inserted in an otherwise irrelevant way, such as pointing out how hot whichever current politician lady is when the discussion is about Medicare for All or The Green New Deal or her ideas on how we’re responding to covid-19.
However, a particular post said the following:
Underlining added for emphasis. I think that is the kind of gratuitous statement we have been cracking down on from men. If we don’t want to know what is going on in men’s pants when they think about women, we shouldn’t be hearing about what is going on in women’s pants.
Agreed.
Mule fritters!
The percentage of those “harassed” should determine whether we will allow it?
Suppose the vast majority of kids bullied wear glasses; by your reasoning, those bullied who enjoy 20/20 vision are on their own.
Cuz that sort of bullying is not a “serious problem”.
For the record I have no issue with either thread.
mmm
A Google search turns up this thread:
most beautiful woman in rock/country/pop history
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=892287
This appears to be the companion thread to which engineer_comp_geek refers.
So, should these type of threads be verboten, or is there room for admiration threads that don’t get too graphic? Is it pure objectivation to merely describe who you think is attractive?
Facts, schmacts! We can (and are) discussing the rightness of three approaches, not two:
[ol]
[li]Close threads about women’s hotness but leave threads on men open because misogyny is worse than misandry[/li][li]Close both types of threads[/li][li]Leave open both types[/li][/ol]
I personally lean toward equal treatment (choice #2 or 3) but don’t most of us, myself included, apply different standards at times based on the level of oppression experienced by a group? For example, I think most of us find gay pride parades to be lovely while we bristle at straight pride parades.
As Emerson so delightfully said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” so I’m not asserting that hotness threads and pride parades need to be treated the same way - but if we judge them in different ways, we need to be able to explain why.
My biggest concern about efforts made here and elsewhere to stamp out sexism is when we unintentionally start to move from “sexism is bad” to “sex is bad.” Is it wrong to objectify and denigrate women? Absolutely. Is it wrong to acknowledge and accept the fact that humans are (most of us, anyway) sexual beings who can delight in our carnal urges? I don’t think so.
I get why people want to stamp out “hotness” threads and police them without respect to gender. Personally, I’d probably allow them all. And while we’re at it, either allow both “cunt” and “dick” (etc.) or ban both.
On this particular topic, there is not much daylight between the two. Maher is very much right wing when it comes to restricting language–he’s deliberately “politically incorrect” and thinks everyone should be allowed to do anything, regardless of whose feelings it hurts. And his entire schtick is to try and “pwn” his opposition.
Your use of the term “Oppression Olympics” suggests you are very much making a “pwn the libs” argument, as that is the context in which that term was coined. It’s a pejorative, used to dismiss inconvenient arguments. It doesn’t actually describe liberal thought in any way, just the right wing strawman of it. And it doesn’t remotely resemble anything argued in this thread.
The actual argument is a simple one; you can’t just cut and paste the concerns of one group on another. The same activity affects women and men differently due to our culture.
The reasons given for why such threads hurt women have not been argued to exist for men. No one has argued that it makes the board feel like a women’s only club. No one has argued that it creates some impossible standards. No one argues that it implies that men only have value based on their looks. We are not losing male posters because they don’t want to post here anymore.
I am a man myself. I do not find such threads objectionable. I notice that, when women were complaining about such threads, many men argued that women should just make the same threads about men, telling me they don’t find it objectionable. And I see that no men complained about such threads before the women did. So it really does not seem like men actually find these threads objectionable.
I find it unlikely that you will find nearly the consensus among male posters that the women had that such threads should not exist. Heck, most of you seem like you’d be fine with such threads as long as you could make them about women, too.
And that is the difference. The best criteria to how offensive something is is to ask those who would be the target how they feel about it. It is not to take the standard you apply from one group and apply it to the other blindly.
I personally do not mind such threads. I actually find it interesting to see what traits women (and, to some extent, gay men) find attractive, because such is not nearly so prominent in our society as what men find attractive. I don’t feel objectified, because I have never been taught by society that my value is in how attractive I look.
The two situations are just not the same, and treating them as the same to me is a losing argument.
And it has nothing to do with women arguing they are the more oppressed. Last I checked, I was not a woman. Imagine an Olympics where we’re arguing we should not win. It’s a dumb concept.
And I couldn’t ask for better help in making my argument above. It’s the perfect example of how you can’t just apply what you apply to women to men. Just because they both are slang for genitals doesn’t mean they are actually used in the same way, just for different genders. At least, not in the US.
“Dick” is used for someone of any gender, and is approximately synonymous with “asshole.” Cunt is a term that is primarily used about women, and indicates that they are worthy of utter contempt. One word is just considered slightly rude, while the other is often considered the worst curse words in American English that people can actually still say. (Worse words ike the n-word or the gay slur f-word can’t be said.)
The closest anyone found for “dick” was “bitch,” and even that is a poor match. And, of course, calling someone “dog”–the literal male version of “bitch”–isn’t offensive at all
Acknowledging the attractiveness of other human beings is one of the life-affirming activities that keeps us all sane. I don’t really understand why so many people have a stick up their ass about it. As long as you don’t degenerate into explicit and lewd talk, I don’t see the problem.
Utter contempt? Says who?
I’m imagining calling someone a cunt and calling someone a dick and they seem about the same to me.
I have never heard a woman called a dick or a prick. Googling “he’s a dick” yields more than 10 times as many hits as “she’s a dick.”
The literal male version of “bitch” is “stud,” not dog.
[only now saw this post when someone else quoted it today]
There were THREE threads. When the one [2nd one] asking about the hotness of the Three’s Company female cast was closed, with the specific rationale given by the mod, I thus became confused as to why the (only) male thread remained open. I never saw the 1st female thread active this month (last post was 3-27), tho I apparently did click on it briefly back then (link greyed out). Someone then here made the weak sauce argument that, given that the only difference between the Three’s Company thread & the others was the ranking thang (implying that the 4th woman would thus be perceived as unattractive, or something, which doesn’t follow), I became even more confused.
For those who don’t think male sexual objectification isn’t a problem; how much discussion here of female-to-male activity of that sort would you tolerate? Is a Doper talking about her adventures going to bars and sticking dollar bills into the g-strings of male models acceptable? To pretend that such things DON’T happen in this culture is naive in the extreme. And, as for those who continue to argue that we need to continue to redress past wrongs by carefully balancing some idealized scale of justice, two wrongs don’t make a right; at what point would male objectification become an issue for you worthy of concern?
I don’t have an issue with such discussions in principle (see **Lamoral’**s post above which I mostly agree with), but mainly wanted the inconsistency cleared up the mods (which, note, we have yet to get).