Yes, the Dope does tend to put women on a pedestal and assume they are paragons of virtue rather than real people with human failings. And many threads that seem even vaguely critical of women are targets for virtue-signallers.
Well then, the issue with prohibiting selective polls becomes one of political correctness, not fighting ignorance. I see that as a huge loss*.
If the problem is say, a poll about a women’s health issue and too many men are gumming up the works, then this becomes an issue for Moderation. Adding an ‘I’m a dude’ option is counterproductive.
Likewise when we had a recent thread about male impotence and a woman decided to drop in and brag about sexually harassing a coworker with the problem. I’m still disappointed that this didn’t result in a warning.
Well, if they’re talking about the current Riverdale show, ok, but if they’re talking about the old comic books or, say, Gilligan’s Island, a show that ran from 1964 - 1967, then they’ve a> been done to death, and b> showing their age. Who the fuck under the age of 40 has even watched that show?
- Who is hotter threads excluded, as we’re not fighting any ignorance there.
I don’t want to die on the hill of poll options. The issue I am concerned with is feeling excluded. But I do think including a category for “others” in polls is a really easy way to signal that you recognize there exist others who might be interested in the thread. You can also do that in the text, of course, but frankly, that’s harder.
(But hey, I’m mathy. So if the poll says 56A/19B/25other it’s pretty intuitive for me to read that as “about 3/4 of the people who care prefer A”)
“Political correctness”, as it’s commonly used in political discussion, is OFTEN just a matter of attempting to be polite to “out” groups. Carefully executed, it does not need to inhibit any actual exchange of ideas. You can express the same thought about “gay men” as about “fags” unless the core thought you want to express is “I disdain these people”. So in general, see political correctness as both consistent with fighting ignorance and also a medium-sized win.
I’m happy to be a virtue signaller, if the alternative is vice signaller.
I agree with you with the caveat that if we cannot have accurate, group specific polls because people get upset by the idea, those people are in the wrong and are detracting from fighting ignorance.
Again, old and busted hotness polls aside.
Yup, not all are so mathy and even some who are somewhat mathy want more than about 3/4 without having to pull out the calculator app. I feel the same way about the “I like cake” choices btw.
While I disagree with Quartz’s post there is a big excluded middle there. But it is telling as sometimes that is how it goes: if you do not appropriately signal virtue you must be signaling vice.
I am happy to be politically correct most of the time as mostly that phrase means simply not being a jerk. Sometimes though it is used to shut down dissenting opinions and sometimes things done in its name it can just make exchange of ideas cumbersome.
Inviting others to be part of the discussion while noting that the interest of the poll is a subpopulation’s experience or thoughts should be enough and is very easy to do. I’d think.
So here to help me understand what some here feel of do not feel should be acceptable - if I was curious about how many men have changed their behaviors in the workplace recently out of concern that their behavior might be interpreted in a “me too” light (less likely to note a female co-worker’s new hair style or whatever, even though they would comment positively on George’s choice to embrace his baldness and go with the shaved dome) would my leaving out options for "female a, b, c; trans a, b, c, d, e; etc. be interpreted as outgrouping?
On preview … I do see that such a poll could include options for a woman poster to note whether or not they have noticed male co-workers change their behavior. Would that be a way to do it?
Trying to learn here.
Given my current activities, I may be too controversial.
That’s pertinent to if you would be asked. Would you be willing to serve?
I’m not saying the middle ground doesn’t exist, I’m saying the behaviour being exhibited by the men who aren’t “virtue-signalling” (i.e. not agreeing with Quartz and cohort) is not it - starting pointed IMHO threads, wedging the word “mansplaining” unnecessarily into threads, etc. is not “middle ground” - it’s reactionary, and that makes it opposite to…whatever it is the male supporters of the efforts of women are doing.
That would, but I don’t think the threads and polls that are making women feel unwelcome are necessarily the political ones (as I would interpret that to be.) It’s more the casual, everyday, “I like Betty”, “look at them boobs” stuff.
(It’s also the people excusing stalkers and abusers, but that’s much harder to change, since that actually DOES get into serious opinions, “fighting ignorance”, and the like. So, you know, start with the easy stuff. )
Without changing the rules or the moderation, I think that men who are concerned about this could stop and ask themselves, “I am expecting women to answer me? If not, why not?”
But in your particular example, you could ask women:
Have you noticed men avoiding social chit chat?
Do you like it when men notice your outfit, or would you prefer they stick to other topics?
Are you worried that men will be afraid to engage with you socially, and that will hurt your career progress and the chances for you to get mentored?
Do you feel that you will get in trouble if you pay too much attention to a man’s outfit? How about it you pay too much attention to a woman’s outfit?
Lots of stuff. Probably way too much to summarize neatly into a poll – so maybe this is actually a topic for wide discussion, and not for a neat little poll in the first place.
I think in general if you are talking about women on this board, it’s nice to assume some women might be reading and might be interested in responding. Same if you are talking about black people, or Catholics, or any other minority.
Aside: I just took a wilderness first aid and CPR class, and one of the instructors mentioned that women are less likely to receive CPR than men, in large part because men are afraid to touch women. I also observed that large breast are kind of in the way of administering CPR, and none of the dummies we had to practice on had breasts. That seemed like a really bad idea. I would happily trade a few lewd jokes about “the knockers on that dummy” for more men who feel comfortable administering CPR on me. To bring this back to the topic at hand, I don’t think it’s about restricting what people can talk about. I think it’s about being inclusive.
(But I do like polls to include an option I can vote. And I’m startled to see how many people here feel otherwise. I wonder how often they are left out of polls. And why they care whether 60% or 70% of voters prefer Betty. Okay, that last is snarky, and I should probably delete it, but I guess I’m feeling a little snarky. :()
I don’t get a vote, but if I did, you’d have it.
Yes.
Something to keep in mind is that Mods are not allowed to put anyone on Ignore.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m part of a lot of minorities and majorities, but I tend to not fully fit in anywhere. I’ve learned to not expect to be included. For example, I’m a woman, but I like women, so I enjoy the “which woman is hotter” polls. I’m also an asocial hermit who has never really experienced any of the things the average straight woman experiences with regards to sexual harassment, etc.
But I don’t like that anyone is feeling unwelcome or excluded, so I am totally onboard with the suggested changes. I still mourn the loss of Eve and Una, who left cos of the transphobia they couldn’t deal with anymore, I believe. I feel like transphobia and misogyny are prolly pretty closely linked. So if we make this board more welcome for all women that would be terrific!
On the other hand, anyone who challenges the idea that men are the privileged oppressors is subject to personal abuse. Many users of this forum consider compassion for male victims of abuse and discrimination to be a moral crime. If that rule is to be enforced, there should be definitions for crimes of Simple Compassion and Aggravated Compassion.
Do you have a cite for this? In my experience on the board, men who have come forward with stories of abuse (I can think of a few posters who can come forward if they wish, as well as public figures like Terry Crews) have been generally received with great compassion by Dopers.
This is a good post and highlights that trying to make a forum homogeneous might not just be futile but might actually be counterproductive. I’m not sure why the concept that not every thread needs to appeal to each potential participant equally is controversial much less offensive.
The idea is not that each thread need to appeal to each potential participant equally. The idea is that the overall tone of the board should not be inhospitable to large swaths of the membership.
Homogeneity has never been the goal.