I’m with you Manda Jo
We’re not legitimizing it, you understand, not at all…
And yet, it remains.
The thread itself, isn’t that shitty at all. You can be mad that the moderation wasn’t firm enough but you could also be glad that almost everyone in that thread thought he wasn’t just wrong but expressed himself in a gross and wrong way.
This.
Serious question. I am a Christian. I am frequently offended by the way Doper atheists belittle and insult my beliefs, often using disparaging language.
It makes me uncomfortable, and it occurs regularly and without so much as a gentle do-not-be-a-jerk reminder from moderation.
Can you imagine speaking like this in any sort of mixed company? At a work function? A back-yard BBQ with Christians present?
Would the OP, and those who support her, stand with me if I chose to protest such behavior.
I ask in good faith and will seriously consider thoughtful replies.
mmm
I would suggest you bring this up in a separate thread, as it has nothing to do with misogyny, which is the subject of this thread.
Unless, of course, you’re trying to divert the conversation.
If that, I would suggest that you cite specific examples of dehumanizing comments - not simply ones that hurt your feelings, but ones that deny your very personhood.
I would also suggest that you show how being mocked for what you choose to believe is the same as being mocked and diminished for something (gender) that is an accident of birth, that you have no choice over?
So are you suggesting that being a Christian is to be a member of a group that has been systematically oppressed by the society, limited in what jobs they can seek, given lower wages, prevented from exercising voting rights, granted a lower legal status, etc., and that demeaning language about Christians is part of the package of societal tools that keep Christians as a group in their second-class position? And that there is a lexicon of demeaning language that specifically targets Christians as being inferior humans or deserving of objectification?
yup
So, could you can cite where this happened recently, then? Where you reported it to the mods, or started an ATMB thread about it, I mean, the same way people upset by misogyny have done?
Because otherwise, your apathy isn’t the responsibility of people complaining about misogyny.
Yeah, mmm is drawing a very poor analogy between misogyny on the boards and the occasional disparaging remarks about Christianity that some of the board atheists occasionally make.
A couple of thoughts: first is, as a Christian myself, the occasional references by board atheists to the Great Sky Pixie or whatever are (a) very occasional, and (b) rarely even rise to the level of an annoyance. I don’t seriously believe mmm actually feels harassed by such references.
Second, these references are largely confined to threads having something to do with religion (and hardly dominate those threads). Misogyny crops up literally across the board. It knows no bounds here.
Yes. What is “mixed company”? I’m very vocal about my beliefs when the topic comes up.
We may disagree over the “occasionally” (I would call it constant but I treat it as a sort of inside joke/running theme here) but ------
is offensive speech only offensive when it is directed at what we could call a recognized protected class such as women? Is it making people uncomfortable that should be the standard or just making certain people uncomfortable? And once we get into that protected class, whose comfort level is the line in the sand? Say someone such as Soapy/ITD or Manda Joe?
I don’t know – which is why I ask.
I think the Mods, as a rule, do a good job; invisible line and all. But since we’re talking making that line visible and clear I am curious about how far it could stretch.
You know, whenever there’s an ATMB thread about race, often someone brings up “What about disparaging speech about Republicans?”. Do you want to be that guy in the misogyny thread?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much question begging in a single post on this board.
-
Yes, it is a thread about “misogyny” but it is perfectly acceptable to point out how the rules regarding posts about pretty women are completely inconsistent with the rules about every other topic out there, including people insulting religious beliefs.
-
Then an accusation of trolling.
-
Then you frame the debate your way by limiting it to “dehumanizing” comments which “deny your very personhood” by someone assuming that if a person makes a crude remark about a woman’s body somewhere in the real world, then it is denies that posters on this board are human. Wow! That’s impressive.
-
You then insult religious views by diminishing them as a mere choice, like whether to have chocolate or vanilla ice cream.
Excellent work in a short post.
However, his point remains. If we are going to “raise the tone” of the board as another poster suggested, it should be done across the board. We shouldn’t just pick our favorite liberal cause and only apply it to that.
have you considered starting a thread about how religion is handled on this board?
No we should make rules that make the place better, not slavishly strive for some foolish consistency.
If you would have read my post just above the one you quoted, I am not interested in how religion is handled on this board. I am interested in consistent rules across all topics. I think that kopek’s post is an excellent one and its a shame that people do not want to answer it.
I would dispute one of his contentions as applied:
If a poster says that he saw a single woman, dressed in short shorts, ass cheeks hanging out, and with long beautiful legs, the poster is not directing his comments at women. He is commenting about a single woman that he saw, not all women as a group.
If I saw a black guy rob a convenience store, I am in no way, at least on this side of the looking glass, making a comment about all blacks or that blacks in particular rob stores.
So, the proper “group” that the poster would be insulting is women who wear revealing clothing, which could be a perfect topic for debate (e.g. nothing wrong with that, just because she wants to dress comfortably doesn’t mean she is your personal sex object, etc.). It is certainly not all women.
I prefer sticking to the actual topic of the thread, because if the conversation runs too far afield it gives an open to those who want to change the subject.
It is directly on point. When it is observed that you are treating a single topic differently than every other topic on the board, it is certainly relevant. Nobody is trying to change the subject.
Back to misogyny and this board-A lot of women that (in my opinion) would make great moderators have already left us, and I am afraid that unless the pace picks up drastically on the anti-misogyny front here it might be too late to turn things around.