Misogyny and Moderation, again

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@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.

Jesus fuckin’ christ.

Tell you what, twitter may not even have these few standards of moderation but at least on twitter if I block a misogynistic troll I probably won’t see them again. Speaking of which…

@SlackerInc

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

So let’s assume we do that, and then nothing changes. They double down (as nate did) keep on saying the same shit. What then?

Do we just accept that that’s the tenor of conversation we should come to expect?

Because if so, I can imagine a whole lot of better shit to do with my time.

[elbows]

Can any mod explain (to any woman still reading) what exactly is so impossible about closing the thread and saying, ‘This topic is not taboo, but this language is not sufficiently respectful to women. Try again if you want to continue with this topic.’

How hard is that?

This unmodded OP screams LOUD that nothing here is going to change. The then degradation into the same old story, with same old players drives the point home.

This thread is a shit show due to lack of moderation, in my humble opinion.

[MrDibble]

So, remind me, when was the first ATMB thread where the mod staff swore they were going to improve the moderation around misogyny here? Because my perception is that after that there was a flurry of activity, and then a whole lot of nothing. And here we are again…

[MandaJo]

@engineer_comp_geek

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

Thanks for the response. I don’t think you stated it clearly enough, and I think that matters. What you appear to be saying is “The thread appears to be within what is acceptable, but I hope it doesn’t get any more extreme, but no foul if it does”. I mean “we don’t like to encourage” is pretty weak sauce. The reason this matters so much is that the OP is already on record as saying he’s 98% sure that all men secretly agree with him. When you appear to bend over backward to avoid an official or firm response, it feeds into that belief.

As far as taking this to ATMB, that’s really all I have to say and I appreciate your response. I’m not angry about the moderation–I think it’s just a great example of a recurring issue from across the moderation staff and worth talking about. I’m totally willing to continue that conversation, or just leave it there–I have said my piece, I hope it registers with the moderation staff.

That said, the rest of THIS thread has served to highlight how deep the problem is. Because here, I think you can see that a lot of posters think that if anything, you went too far–they don’t think there should be any official stance on that sort of objectifying language, and they see your response as evidence that we DON’T condemn that sort of language… They see in your official response confirmation that we don’t “muzzle” speech and that that sort of thing is acceptable, so long as it doesn’t burst into fully-formed Penthouse Forum.

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.

In post #11, you said:

@engineer_comp_geek

If someone says something offensive at a party and everyone around him says “dude, not cool”, then perhaps the appropriate response for the host is just to acknowledge the situation so that everyone knows the host at least knows that the guy did something wrong, and to keep an eye on the situation to see if the guy got the message from his peers. Or perhaps not. That’s exactly why we are having this discussion here.

To me, that “Perhaps, or perhaps not” suggests that you were on the fence about whether an official moderator response was appropriate, or if a more “neutral” approach was more appropriate for the host.

But honestly, ever since about then, when you got busy or whatever (which is fine), I haven’t been arguing with you, I’ve been arguing with the swarm of posters who think that speech like the OP shouldn’t have been modded at all.

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.

I very much appreciate this. Again, I wasn’t at all angry, originally: I just wanted to point out that the language used to moderate the post was very weak, and that it doesn’t matter if other people in the thread have “done a good job educating the OP”–a firm moderator response is still important.

[Cheesesteak]

I started reading this thread and was prepared to defend the lack of moderation, but after reading the whole thing, I’m not going to do that. I read the original thread before this one, and didn’t think much of it, but that’s on me.

There is no need to use disrespectful language when discussing a topic, even if the topic is how your brain reacts disrespectfully in certain circumstances. If your brain’s internal dialog sometimes includes a stream of racial epithets, and you’d like to discuss this fact on the SDMB, you don’t need to trot out those epithets as proof, or simply use them in your post as if they weren’t ugly language.

[TokyoBayer]

@engineer_comp_geek

My intent with “the OP certainly has some issues” was to agree . . . is saying that I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I’m not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I’m saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).

My point with “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" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here. You state that there is " No suggestion demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying idioms are a problem at all.” when in fact I am explicitly saying the exact opposite of that. Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.

ecg, I’m very confused here and I hope you can clarify.

Here in this thread, you made the statements above. I bolded three parts.

First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I’m not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I’m saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?

Second, you stated, “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" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.

Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.

As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.

[Ibanez]

Libido

Libido (/lɪˈbiːdoʊ/; colloquial: sex drive) is a person’s overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity. Libido is influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors

The alleged offender attempted to convey male human libido exists - which is partly a biological function is “misogynistic” now, seriously ?

The alleged offender wasn’t even particularly nasty or crass about trying to convey that, except for maybe admitting not being able to do so discretely without upsetting his wife. But he is right, that urge is in most males. Without it we’d be extinct as a species. Libido is different for men than women. But we both have it, even some women feel the same believe it or not when it comes to certain men. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

Now I’ll expect a chorus of self-identifying SD males saying that they never have those urges. All obvious outliers then for a variety of reasons, but that’s not how you reach an true consensus by a sampling of a biased source anyways.

Homo sapiens have been humping each other for over 200,000 years. There’s a biological component that’s taken root over that time that cannot be suddenly be erased because some people find it offensive, science doesn’t work that way. If people want it banned because it’s offensive to sex-negative feminism I guess that’s a different topic.

Also if people stop threatening to leave the SD + that be great. Just leave or get involved in a discussion you don’t agree with, start one, but stop complaining to the mods every time it comes up asking them to bring down the hammer on your behalf because it’s offensive.

I too find some subjects offensive on this site. The term white males is always usually brought up with derision and snark. I recently saw a thread on what makes up a man-child the other day, whereas if there was similar thread say what makes up a gold-digger I have no doubt it would have been nuked. I had a choice to engage in the thread, pit them or complain to the mods. I did none of that, instead took my dog out for a walk.

[MrDibble]

@Ibanez

The alleged offender wasn’t even particularly nasty or crass about trying to convey that,

You have a *very *different definition of crass from mine, if you think “I’d like to fuck the hell out of that” isn’t it.

But hey, kudos on the gratuitous trans dig you slipped into your post.

[kopek]

Somehow I am slightly surprised this thread is still open.

[CarnalK]

@TokyoBayer

ecg, I’m very confused here and I hope you can clarify.

Here in this thread, you made the statements above. I bolded three parts.

First, you stated, “I hope nate actually gets what people are saying. I’m not weaseling out of saying that the OP is offensive, I’m saying that I hope nate understands why some people in the thread are saying its offensive (because it is offensive).” but from Nate’s further comments, it appears he’s not learning, rather, he has doubled down. Obvious getting feedback from the crowd has failed. Why wasn’t a Mod Note made?

Second, you stated, “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" is also to say that in general these types of posts are not acceptable here.” Yet this seems to me to be what nate is doing.

Third, you stated, “Demeaning descriptions of women and objectifying are not acceptable here.” Yet again, this wasn’t modded.

As nate is not learning from the experience, why can’t this be modded as the OP and subsequent comments clearly violate your stated guidelines? Obviously, as the OP was written prior to these guidelines, a warning would be unreasonable, but wouldn’t it set a clearer message to everyone that there are indeed guidelines?

Unless your post was not intended to state guidelines, and if so, shouldn’t that be clearly stated.

I am still unclear why there wasn’t a mod note for the language but your other questions seem off line. You really think a mod note should have been given because nate didn’t learn his lesson quick enough? And I think the locker room talk he refers to is threads where guys are saying stuff like “That Kathy Ireland had great eyebrows. I could put those to good use, if you know what I mean!” not something as generic as nate’s “pretty girls make me think of sex”.

[Ibanez]

@MrDibble

You have a *very *different definition of crass from mine, if you think “I’d like to fuck the hell out of that” isn’t it.

But hey, kudos on the gratuitous trans dig you slipped into your post.

Just going by what I read from the OP, and that wasn’t there. I would assume it would be if it was said, or was this another case of “he didn’t say it - but this is what he meant”

And no idea on what you’re referring regarding me insulting trans people in my post.

[MandaJo]

@CarnalK

. . .not something as generic as nate’s “pretty girls make me think of sex”.

He said “I’d like to fuck the hell out of that”, not “pretty girls make me think of sex”

[iiandyiiii]

@Ibanez

Just going by what I read from the OP, and that wasn’t there. I would assume it would be if it was said, or was this another case of “he didn’t say it - but this is what he meant”

From the OP of the thread that this OP was referring to:

“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.”

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135

[CarnalK]

@MandaJo

He said “I’d like to fuck the hell out of that”, not “pretty girls make me think of sex”

I am well aware of the language he used and I’ve agreed that it should have been moderated multiple times in this thread. I was describing the subject matter with regards to that part of ecg’s note.

[Ibanez]

@iiandyiiii

From the OP of the thread that this OP was referring to:

“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.”

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135

Ok thanks. Crass yest, and I wouldn’t have said that here knowing the audience.

Odd that OP didn’t include that in her original post.

[thorny_locust]

@engineer_comp_geek

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

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:

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.

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.

engineer_comp_geek, I’ve read and re-read this post, and I’m still confused. What does it mean to say that the OP’s original post is not acceptable, and that the moderators in general are committed to the path of making such things not acceptable, but to say simultaneously that you’re not moderating it?

I’m not saying that you couldn’t have moderated it and left the thread open for further discussion; I think that would have made a lot of sense. But it does really seem to me that you’re giving mixed signals here.
– Ibanez, absolutely no one is saying that libido doesn’t exist, or that most men (or for that matter, most women) don’t have sexual thoughts.

[Maserschmidt]

@Ibanez

Ok thanks. Crass yest, and I wouldn’t have said that here knowing the audience.

Odd that OP didn’t include that in her original post.

Odd that you didn’t read the original thread before opining.

[MrDibble]

@Ibanez

Just going by what I read from the OP, and that wasn’t there.

No, it’s in the OP of the thread this thread is about. So you’re commenting here without having read the actual thread this is about?

I would assume it would be if it was said, or was this another case of “he didn’t say it - but this is what he meant”

No, it’s a verbatim quote from nate’s OP. And it’s been repeated right on this page…

And no idea on what you’re referring regarding me insulting trans people in my post.

What was “self-identifying SD males” about, then?

[Czarcasm]

@Ibanez

Ok thanks. Crass yest, and I wouldn’t have said that here knowing the audience.

Whereas I wouldn’t say it because it is crass, sexist and the wrong thing to say in any environment.

But to each his own, I guess.

[Isosleepy]

I don’t think it is possible at all to moderate this board to the point where no surviving posts are offensive to anyone. Or at least not without this board losing much of what makes it have value.
When offensive comments are made, those offended can note their being offended , and why. If enough members note their being offended by certain things, and the behavior continues regardless, mods get to decide whether the poster is now trolling, or merely expounding an unpopular viewpoint. That is why we have moderators.