Maybe you should read the thread, because** Saint Cad** never used the word “harpy”.
Huh. I suppose I was wrong to rely on Measure for Measure’s summary of the post that initiated the unpleasantness, then. But waitaminute, that post was directly quoted!
Please pardon me for not seeing the distinction between the word “harpy” and the word “harpies.” Particularly when he states that Secretary Clinton earned the nickname of their queen.*
*anyway, shouldn’t it be President of the Harpies? We’re Americans; we don’t have queens…
And now that I have read the thread, I can report tbat you’re mistaken. In addition to “Harpies” in the OP, he uses “harpy” in post 50.
Also, I stand by the points I made above.
OK, my bad. I had interpreted that as him quoting other people, but reading it again, I can see that it’s a fair interpretation to claim that he was agreeing with that characterization. In fact, it makes more sense that way.
The absolute most generous way for this to be interpreted is that you got baited into breaking the rules and then broke the rules.
But even then, you still broke the rules. Don’t tell anybody to shove anything up their anywheres unless you’re in the Pit. As a teacher, you understand the need for rules about Big Things to be applied evenhandedly. Here at the Dope, direct insults like that are on the list of Big Things.
It’s just the Simpsons quote required in every thread as long as I have been here. 
Your offense was pretty severe and was clearly warnable.
First, while I am not a GD mod (thankfully), this is the first I’ve heard that accusations of sexism were in themselves a reason for modding. Second, I don’t see anything particularly objectionable in Hampshire’s post. Third, some feminists in fact do regard “harpy” as sexist. (I am not accusing you of being sexist, but by using the word you do open yourself to that charge. You should probably not use it if you want to avoid being accused of sexism.)
As far as I can see your complaint is entirely baseless.
From the OP:
Really? Then maybe you should read post #15 in this thread and note who wrote it because that is the standard I thought was used on this board and I believe Hampshire was using weasel words to get around that. Oh and thanks for the “blame the victim” angle of using the term Harpy to refer to her voice means it’s my fault I’m accused of sexism after Hampshire deliberately misinterprets what I wrote.
5 minute edit window
TL;DR version of the post referred to is that insulting outside the pit is moddable and depending on context calling someone a sexist can be moddable. So an exchange like:
I don’t think Clinton will make a good President
So women can’t handle power? You’re a sexist.
would be moddable if I am reading CKDH’s response correctly.
Here’s a thought experiment. You were angry about your wife getting threatened with a write-up, and being forced to apologize to her subordinates for making her voice heard. I’d be angry too. So tomorrow she comes home from work and says, “Well, I got written up after all. The team under me has decided I am too “shrill” and even called me a harpy.”
(I am assuming here you don’t find her shrill) would you then say, “Oh, honey, here I thought you were a victim of sexism. But it turns out you just need to modulate your tone of voice! Let’s find you a voice coach!” Whew, turns out there is no sexism there at all. What a relief. Finding a woman in power to be shrill and harpy-like, well, that’s not sexist.
Would you get even more angry at this further evidence of sexism? As I said, you find her voice pleasing.
Something else entirely?
No one called you a sexist. And as far as I can see, if you had been accused of using sexist language that would have been OK.
You’ve made yourself into a victim here by wildly overreacting to what appears to be a legitimate point. The word you used is regarded as sexist by some feminists. If you really aren’t sexist, you should apologize for having used it in the first place.
But that’s nothing like what happened here. (I would also point out that the CKDH’s post was made four years ago, he is no longer on staff, and he wasn’t a GD mod in the first place. The current GD mods would be better guides on what’s acceptable.
People act in sexist ways sometimes. They say sexist shit sometimes–like criticizing a woman (incidentally one with a fairly low-pitched voice for a woman) as “shrill” and as a “harpy”–without necessarily realizing what they’re doing. The idea that we’re all too fragile to be challenged when we say something sexist is absurd.
If I say something that you sincerely think is sexist, please confront me on it. If you sincerely see it as antisemitic, confront me on it. I might disagree, or I might not–but it’s not the end of the world to face such a challenge.
I recognize that “You are a sexist” violates board rules. But “You said something sexist” most certainly doesn’t violate any rule set down. And it certainly should not.
In terms of best practice, I think usage of “Harpy” and “Shrill” to refer to a female orator merits discussion.
But at the same time I also think Hillary Clinton’s speech patterns merit discussion. It should be permissible to say that she sounded shrill. Personally, I admit that I sometimes (not always) find it grating when Hillary Clinton raises her voiced. I’ve talked it over with friends about whether there’s some sexism in my perceptions. Unlike LHoD (if I understand him, which I may not), I don’t think that accusation negates the bulk of my point (it does offset it). But I agree with LHoD that I’d like the matter discussed. I frankly haven’t wrapped my mind around the issue, but I suspect that part of it may involve “Getting over it”.
Moderators should provide space for both discussions outside of the Pit. I think they have. There’s some ignorance to be probed, not least of all my own.
I definitely think it should be permitted to say that she’s shrill, and a harpy. I definitely think it should be permitted to say that such accusations are rooted in sexist double-standards. I definitely think there should be room for a discussion around what criticisms of women’s speaking styles are rooted in sexist double-standards, and what criticisms are reasonable and could apply equally to men. There’s even room for a discussion around whether such double standards are legitimate–someone in another thread suggested (hilariously in my opinion) that Trump’s aggression is working for him, whereas Clinton’s is not. That’s a fine discussion to have.
What shouldn’t be allowed, IMO:
- Moderators tsking at people for using the word “sexist” to describe an argument, if they’re backing up that claim with any sincerely-held reason; and
- People responding to such charges with “shove it up your ass” or whatever.
Saint Cad, I’m afraid I found the title of this thread misleading. It strikes me that there is quite a difference between your thread title:
"I’m accused of sexism so of course I get a warning."
compared to what seems to me to accurately reflect what happened:
"I’m accused of sexism so I said to ‘go ahead and shove the accusation of sexism up your ass’ and of course I get a warning."
If you don’t see a difference between those two titles, I’m afraid there’s not much we can do to help you.
So let me ask the Board this. Let’s say the conversation goes like this:
<A> I don’t think Obama has been a good President.
<B> People that don’t like uppity Negros in position of power say they don’t like Obama as President.
Has person B called person A a racist?
If so, should person B be modded for calling person A a racist via weasel words?
How about something more similar to the actual situation:
A: McCain just acts better than Obama, who is so uppity.
B: Disagree. I think anytime a black guy has a take-charge attitude people immediately label him as uppity.
Yes, that would be an unfortunate exchange, and if someone pulled that form of attack in a SDMB forum (other than the Pit) I would report it.
Something more valid might go along these lines:
<A> I don’t think Obama has been a good President.
<B> Some of the people who think so are racists. In fact, many of the people who think so are racists. It’s unfortunate, because it poisons the debate, but a significant part the attack on Obama’s two terms in office has been, in fact, based on arrant racism.
This has the advantage of avoiding saying or even implying anything directly about good sir <A> who, at that point, hasn’t actually said anything racist himself. <B> enjoys plausible deniability.
<A> I’m offended by that.
<B> Why, ever? I said nothing about you.
and so on.
ETA: Having been leap-frogged, I was responding to Saint Cad’s hypothetical exchange.