Misogyny and Moderation, again

[thorny_locust]

@SamuelA

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?

@UltraVires

I don’t think it is appropriate for you or anyone else to tell a poster the proper way to discuss a topic or “how to do so.”

I was attempting to answer SamuelA’s direct question by providing an example. That may, admittedly, have been a mistake; but not for the reasons you’re giving.

@UltraVires

a little more than 25 years ago I was on the Student Council at my local University when the first “hate speech” code was debated.

@SamuelA

No further questions. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, clearly the witness is a qualified speaker on the dividing line between “hate speech” and the matter at hand. I rest my case.

I’m afraid that SamuelA might actually mean that claim seriously.

I’m also afraid that SamuelA might mean all the other things he’s said recently in this thread seriously. I’m not going to derail the thread further by tackling them all, however.

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Again, those of raising the issue are not suggesting banning topics. It’s moderating objectifying language while discussing the topics.

That seems to be exactly what some people are objecting to – they want, not only to be able to discuss any subject, but to be able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please, but without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren’t phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them.

@Sherrerd

It’s all common sense, really.

There is unfortunately no such thing.

[SlackerInc]

@thorny_locust

That seems to be exactly what some people are objecting to – they want, not only to be able to discuss any subject, but to be able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please, but without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren’t phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them.

Epic strawman.

[Sherrerd]

@thorny_locust

… That seems to be exactly what some people are objecting to – they want, not only to be able to discuss any subject, but to be able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please, but without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren’t phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them. …

@SlackerInc

Epic strawman.

It really isn’t. The posts equating the OP’s point with “policing” and “muzzling” are numerous in this thread. If the intent of those posts is not to express resentment over not being “able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please,” then what is the intent of these posts? A selection from just the first 120, providing an illustrative amount of evidence:

#21: policing
#26: torches and pitchforks
#42: muzzled
#54: does not want men on the board to talk frankly
#73: “demand no one has the right to see his posts”
#90: censoring; “conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters”
#103: banned speech
#118: banning; banned

@thorny_locust

…There is unfortunately no such thing.

Granted, “common sense” is sadly uncommon. But aspirations are important.

[MandaJo]

Well, I had a busy afternoon and there’s now way too much to respond to; I am sorry. This is why I start threads like literally once every few years.

@Acsenray

She’s not talking about silencing a viewpoint. She’s talking about rejecting demeaning expressions.

This is what I am trying to say and I honestly feel like attempts to make this about the topic, not about the moderation of the words, is a strawman.

@Jonathan_Chance

Not my forum, of course, but that’s absolute nonsense. If one requires validation before one can speak then one is ceding one’s right to be heard at all. That’s your choice, certainly. But don’t use it as an excuse to dodge an issue.

It’s pithy, I know, but I’ve long been fond of the saying, “If you take what they give you, you get what you deserve.”

You want to effect change? You want to see new paradigms? Speak loudly and firmly. No one can give you the authority to be self-actualized and possess your own agency. Only you can do that. If you choose not to, then fine. That’s your call and I’ll support you in it. But don’t tell me you need someone else’s permission to speak.

I’ve been doing this for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. And what I want is your, as in the moderator’s support. When women say “Wow, that’s offensive” I don’t want moderation to respond with “I hope the OP can see how some people MIGHT FIND what he said offensive” but no moderator instruction to avoid that sort of language. That’s not fucking support.

And this happens over and over and over again. And every time we dance this dance: any discussion of HOW something is said turns into a defense of WHAT was said. There’s this “dude camaraderie” aesthetic and while women are allowed to be here, we are supposed to just understand that this is how dudes talk and it’s unfair to cramp their style.

And it does limit my ability to participate because I can’t participate without coming in loaded for bear. I can’t discuss the issue and just leave the offensive language–to do so is to appear to condone it. Before I can speak at all, I have to throw a fit about the language, because how can I talk about a complex and nuanced issue and ignore the fact that the place of women in this narrative is that of an object. And when I do, I know that the moderation is going to, at most, suggest that “some people might see it as offensive”

Acsenray said what I wasn’t around to say better than I could say it:

@Acsenray

Is that what you’d say to a non-white person faced with a thread in which racial epithets and hate speech are being freely tossed around and unmoderated?

Change isn’t just about the determination of the oppressed group being willing to face hate speech. It’s also about the society at large making it socially unacceptable.

@Acsenray

Her issue is not literally about whether the topic of the thread is exclusively about men or women’s anatomies.

It’s that the tenor of the discussion is one that uses language that is disrespectful to women, this making her feel disrespected by the social atmosphere of the conversation and thus not wanting to be part of that atmosphere.

The same thing would be true for me for example if a thread accepted the use of demeaning language about people of my race or age or religion or body type. If I’m an overweight person, I’m not going to participate in a thread in which the other participants freely use terms that are demeaning and humiliating about fat people—fatasses, porkers, pigs, oinkers, lazy disgusting fat bastards cramming their faces.

Regardless of whether the topic is a valid topic of discussion, the tenor of the language is exclusionary. That’s the point.

[MandaJo]

One more thing:

@wolfpup

One example I could give is the editorial policy of the New Yorker, acclaimed for the quality of its writing, which permits words and phrases that would send most mainstream editors straight to the fainting couch. The condition under which they are permitted is simply that they must be relevant, and not simply gratuitous – whether the relevance is serious social commentary or just satire and sarcasm. And this is the sense, I believe, in which the OP of the thread you object to is using such phrases. I’m not sure if he ever actually says “I’d hit that” or if that was inferred, but he certainly says equivalent things like “damn, I’d like to f**k the hell out of that”. But note: he is trying to accurately express his mental state in a particular circumstance. He is not using the term gratuitously, as would, say, someone who just randomly blurts it out. If he were to write, instead, “I found that woman extremely attractive”, he is not only failing to express the pertinent emotion, such a banal description isn’t even expressing the same idea!

Here’s the original post:

[quote]

@nate

I’d bet my life it’s like this for 98% of males. I mean, I’m kind of curious about if you were really honest, walking down the street and you see any attractive women, how can you help your brain not automatically think “damn, I’d like to fuck the hell out of that”. Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit.

How is that not gratuitous? He can say “I find my overpowering physical response embarrassingly overwhelming. It’s biological, it’s like I can’t help it.” If I can’t “get it” from that, then the description of ass-cheeks and “fuck the hell out of that” is not going to clarify it for me.

He’s getting off on this description. He’s wallowing in it. And people who start threads like that should be told to knock it off by the moderation.

[Bone]

I recall an event of similar nature with Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt, essentially saying that women in science laboratories were distractingly beautiful or something like that, actually what I think he said was worse. He got taken to task and had to resign. I think we are better for it if we call out this kind of derogatory commentary when we see it, so thank you for starting this thread. There’s a line to be drawn, but it’s not black and white and having these things called out helps us see there is a line, however fuzzy it may be.

I leave it to the IMHO mods to address the specifics.

[SlackerInc]

@Sherrerd

It really isn’t. The posts equating the OP’s point with “policing” and “muzzling” are numerous in this thread. If the intent of those posts is not to express resentment over not being “able to discuss any subject while using any language that they please,” then what is the intent of these posts? A selection from just the first 120, providing an illustrative amount of evidence:

#21: policing
#26: torches and pitchforks
#42: muzzled
#54: does not want men on the board to talk frankly
#73: “demand no one has the right to see his posts”
#90: censoring; “conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters”
#103: banned speech
#118: banning; banned

You quoted but did not address the portion of the argument that was a strawman. It was: “without themselves having to listen to any objections to such language; or at least, to any objections that aren’t phrased exactly in a fashion acceptable to them”. That is the epic strawman. I did not see anyone making any assertion like that. Just the opposite: they were saying that people should state any objections they like, but not muzzle the OP.

[UltraVires]

@Bone

I recall an event of similar nature with Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt, essentially saying that women in science laboratories were distractingly beautiful or something like that, actually what I think he said was worse. He got taken to task and had to resign. I think we are better for it if we call out this kind of derogatory commentary when we see it, so thank you for starting this thread. There’s a line to be drawn, but it’s not black and white and having these things called out helps us see there is a line, however fuzzy it may be.

I leave it to the IMHO mods to address the specifics.

No. You said we could talk about any topic we wanted. If it turns out that women in science labs are indeed distractingly beautiful, then based upon your post, we can’t talk about that. It’s bullshit.

As I said above, don’t ban the topic. Have posters respond about how to deal with beautiful women in science labs, or make a point that men looking at women for their sexual attributes in science labs is poor form and they need to adapt with the times. Why squelch speech on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance?

Or do you retract your statement that we can talk about any topic?

This “fuzzy line” only allows the most vocal critics to suppress speech for fear that people are leaving this board. Have a fairly reasonable line and tell people on the other side to suck it up like conservatives and religious people have to do every day while posting here.

[UltraVires]

@MandaJo

How is that not gratuitous? He can say “I find my overpowering physical response embarrassingly overwhelming. It’s biological, it’s like I can’t help it.” If I can’t “get it” from that, then the description of ass-cheeks and “fuck the hell out of that” is not going to clarify it for me.

He’s getting off on this description. He’s wallowing in it. And people who start threads like that should be told to knock it off by the moderation.

Perhaps all OPs should be directed to you so you can edit them so they do not offend your sensibilities?

And I get the Trump ones (and religious and Republican ones). When someone calls him “his orangeness” or something like that, I can reform them so we get “better” debates without any gratuitous add ons.

[Bone]

@UltraVires

No. You said we could talk about any topic we wanted. If it turns out that women in science labs are indeed distractingly beautiful, then based upon your post, we can’t talk about that. It’s bullshit.

You’re reading something that wasn’t written. Feel free to talk about any topic. Rather than react defensively, I suggest you try to interpret generously. It goes a long way.

We prohibit hate speech. If a topic is the pros and cons of segregated schools, that’s a topic that can be discussed. If however, an OP laces the conversation with hate speech referring to various minorities, I’m going to shut that down. The topic isn’t verboten, but we do have various guide rails on what is acceptable.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@UltraVires

No. You said we could talk about any topic we wanted. If it turns out that women in science labs are indeed distractingly beautiful, then based upon your post, we can’t talk about that. It’s bullshit.

It is bullshit, because women in science labs aren’t distractingly beautiful. That’s a framing that removes male agency entirely from the picture.

What is true is that some scientists are so sloppy with their sexual attraction, have so little self-control, that they’re unable to stay focused on their work when they’re sexually attracted to a co-worker. They haven’t learned how to avoid distraction.

See how that reframe works? Now it’s clear that the problem isn’t women’s sexxxy mojo. The problem is that some men need to figure out how to have some basic self-control.

The problem is a little deeper, though, and the framing reveals that. Those men don’t even think they’re a problem. Anyone who talks about “distractingly beautiful” women and means it in any serious way is externalizing responsibility for male self-control.

And the way they’re doing that is part of a millennia-long history of misogyny.

[SlackerInc]

So tell a poster that. Don’t insist they be punished for saying what they said.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SlackerInc

So tell a poster that. Don’t insist they be punished for saying what they said.

“I’m telling you, LHOD, don’t tell other posters what to do!”

Sorry, dude. We’re discussing what the rules should be. I think Manda is in the right here: the matter can be discussed appropriately, but the current model ain’t it.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Bone

I leave it to the IMHO mods to address the specifics.

Ok, so you and a couple other mods have chimed in to say this isn’t your place to say anything.

When are the mods, that can “have a say” going to show up and say something?

Also I if go into any forum and starting shouting the N-Word 100 times. Are all the other mods except the mods of that forum going to come in and say, “I can’t speak to the specifics of the complaint because it is not my forum so I’ll let the mods of that forum say something.”

And yet the specific mods of that forum not actually say something.

That sounds awefully like this place condones me shouting the N-Word 100 times. And the mods not giving a shit about hate speech.

Which I thought was a rule.

[SlackerInc]

Strawmen continue to abound.

:rolleyes:

[engineer_comp_geek]

@MandaJo

Well, I had a busy afternoon and there’s now way too much to respond to

Yep, same here. I’ll try to respond to at least some of the points raised in this thread so far though.

@MandaJo

When women say “Wow, that’s offensive” I don’t want moderation to respond with “I hope the OP can see how some people MIGHT FIND what he said offensive” but no moderator instruction to avoid that sort of language. That’s not fucking support.

As was pointed out way back in post #9, this is entirely a misunderstanding of what I wrote on your part. Again, as was already said, what you are calling a response is not a response. It is a comment on posts that were made, and a hope that the OP might gain some understanding based on responses from the thread. It was not the moderation response that you are making it out to be.

This part of my response is more pertinent:

@engineer_comp_geek

We really do not want to encourage posts along the lines of “women make me want to have sex”, and we definitely do not want to encourage men’s locker room types of posts where men just talk about who they want to have sex with and why.

This is the part that I thought was saying pretty much exactly what you are asking for. I am trying to make it clear that while I am allowing the thread to continue, we really don’t want OP’s like that here. You can argue that I did not state it clearly enough or explicitly enough, but that was the intent, to say that the OP, and posts along similar lines, are not acceptable here.

Look, I’m human, and the English language is not precise. Sometimes what I am trying to say may not come across exactly how it was intended. I apologize for not being clear enough, and I will attempt to be more explicit on this topic going forward.

I thought you were clear on the misunderstanding back around post #11 of this thread. If you are going to continue to be angry over what you thought I said instead of what I actually said, well, I can’t help you there.

To all of our female members, we are committed to making this place less misogynistic, and we are at least attempting to provide exactly the support that you are looking for. Again, we’re human, and we’re pretty much guaranteed to make a few mistakes as we continue down this path, but we are all working towards the same goal here.

To all of those in this thread who think we are going down the wrong path, or think that we are arbitrarily enacting some draconian set of rules, or that we need some explicitly stated 400 page rule book so you will know exactly where the lines are, let me be blunt. All of you need to get with the fucking program. We are on this path, we are committed to it, and we have the full support of our administrator behind it. We are not making unreasonable demands, and what we are asking for is not difficult to understand.

@Banquet_Bear

…a quick question: looking at the moderating team its an all-male team now isn’t it? No women moderators?

We do not currently have any female moderators. However, our administrator is female, and while you generally do not see much from her posted on the board, she is very much involved in the moderation here behind the scenes.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@SlackerInc

Strawmen continue to abound.

:rolleyes:

And you continue to change the subject of the topic of this thread. Purposefully. :Rolleyes:

[SlackerInc]

@Drunky_Smurf

And you continue to change the subject of the topic of this thread. Purposefully. :Rolleyes:

I have no idea what you mean, so if it’s happening at all (which I rather doubt), it’s certainly not purposefully.

[iiandyiiii]

@SamuelA

Well, for whatever reason, entire ethnicities are banned from using that dialect.

Not exactly - people who aren’t fluent in that dialect are probably going to screw up the usage of sensitive words like that which require fluency. And very, very few non black people are fluent.

[iiandyiiii]

@engineer_comp_geek

We do not currently have any female moderators.

ISTM that this should be a relatively easy problem to solve. Does the staff see this as a problem, and if so, are they trying to solve it?