Misogyny and Moderation, again

[Mean_Mr.Mustard]

@MandaJo

How important do you think it is to be allowed to use phrases like “I’d like to hit that ass” when discussing these topics?

Read his OP again. He is describing the thoughts that go through his (and, according to him, other guys’) mind upon seeing an attractive woman.

He is *not *saying, “Hey, Dopers, I’d like to hit that ass!”

Before you wave this away, consider that I acknowledge that this is a fine - but important - distinction.
mmm

[DrDeth]

@MandaJo

What counts as “censored or muzzled”? You can’t say “When I see attractive women, all I can think about is how much I’d like to hit that, especially if she’s in the shorts that show ass cheeks” in ALL SORTS of circumstances without being reprimanded. Why is saying it shouldn’t be acceptable HERE “muzzling and censoring”?

Well, because that is- exactly what it is. There is a post, you dont like the post, you want it muzzled.

We discuss many issues that some find uncomfortable- gay sex, trans issues, murder, gun control, perversions… trump… and while I have no issue with anyone finding any of those something they’d rather not read- asking that *no one gets to read * and mis-labeling it with the label of "misogyny’ (which is thrown around here too lightly- along with “racist”) is indeed “muzzling” some dudes post.

Lots of issues here, some are uncomfortable. Just dont read those that you find uncomfortable. And don’t call something “misogyny” that so clearly isn’t.

[Mean_Mr.Mustard]

@MandaJo

What counts as “censored or muzzled”? You can’t say “When I see attractive women, all I can think about is how much I’d like to hit that, especially if she’s in the shorts that show ass cheeks” in ALL SORTS of circumstances without being reprimanded. Why is saying it shouldn’t be acceptable HERE “muzzling and censoring”?

The poster, in his clunky way, was describing what goes through his mind and wondering if his theory that every man thinks this way is valid.

In soliciting such input (in his clunky way) it was necessary to describe these thoughts.
mmm

[Czarcasm]

I’m thinking that if one has no problem being described as a “horndog”, one should not be surprised if the topic of muzzling comes up.

[SlackerInc]

I endorse posts 42 and 43, and would accentuate the point by noting that no one is presumably saying that Manda Jo shouldn’t speak up and express her disgust with a post she doesn’t like, just like I might express disgust if someone defended Sean Hannity. But that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that someone would not be allowed to endorse Hannity’s worldview.

[DrDeth]

@CarnalK

The board is slowly and inevitably losing population. From earlier threads/polls it seems true that it’s losing women population faster. … There’s no going back even if the majority wants everyone to chillax on the misogyny concerns.

Got facts?

And- don’t mis-use that word. There was no misogyny in that OP. Might as well call him a racist too.

[DrDeth]

@Sherrerd

The opening post in question was that thing very common in most societies on the planet: an assertion of being a member of the dominant group. I get to do what I want with the bodies of my inferiors, and we’re all able to do what we want with those bodies, and isn’t it great, my brothers! Let’s relax and talk some tits and ass!…

Wow. I dont know what Op* you* read…:dubious:

[Sunny_Daze]

I said earlier that I was comfortable with the thread, but that’s not completely accurate. I appreciated most of the responses and that they were mostly from male members. It is reassuring to me to learn that nate’s behavior and thought are not the norm.

Manda JO and the others are right. The topic could have been discussed in appropriate language. I was wrong to fail to make that distinction sooner.

[SlackerInc]

I feel confident that if we could somehow split into two timelines and moderate only one the way Manda Jo prefers, the board population would be smaller in that universe. But she might argue that it would be a better board, and perhaps so, from some peoples perspective. I just don’t think the numbers argument is very strong.

[DrDeth]

@SlackerInc

I endorse posts 42 and 43, and would accentuate the point by noting that no one is presumably saying that Manda Jo shouldn’t speak up and express her disgust with a post she doesn’t like, just like I might express disgust if someone defended Sean Hannity. But that doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean that someone would not be allowed to endorse Hannity’s worldview.

Of course, she has every right to say that “guys” post is disgusting. And, I think I made it clear I didn’t approve of it either, with terms like classless horndog, clueless, etc.

Hannity. :mad:

[SamuelA]

@Helena330

That’s what we’ve been protesting for MONTHS.. How objectifying, demeaning, and hostile women find it when men post what gets their dicks hard! That was Manda JO’s, ITD’s, and my entire point.

:smack::smack::smack:

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?

[CarnalK]

@DrDeth

Got facts?

And- don’t mis-use that word. There was no misogyny in that OP. Might as well call him a racist too.

I’ll look it up, but I found a couple of poll threads on gender from like ten years ago (both within months of each other) and a couple of more current ones. The old ones agreed closely with each other and so did the current one - there was a significantly lower female percentage in the current ones. DSeid started an ATMB thread using them a while back.

There was misogyny in the OP. It used objectifying language. So you’re just wrong. The only defense is that it was an honest description of what is really going through his head and as such, a matter for discussion.

[SamuelA]

@MandaJo

Per instructions, I am taking this to ATMB, because I think it illustrates the issue here.

OP starts a thread where he says that when he sees a hot woman with “ass cheeks hanging out”, all he can think is that he wants to “hit that”.

Rather than give a note that says something like “Hey, dude, we don’t talk about women like that here”, the burden is put on us to unofficially “educate” him that there’s something wrong with talking about women as if they were objects. Spoiler, it didn’t work, because in post #86, he was doubling down:

I read the posts you quoted.

Many men see women as having inherent value over some random stranger on the street because of their mating potential, as indicated by various secondary sexual characteristics. Were nate to attempt to seek a relationship with one of these women, he might act charming and want to know her as a person, but he wouldn’t be bothering if she didn’t have clear mate value, as indicated by various characteristics.

So what is the part that offends you, specifically?

Is it the fact that his subconscious mind skips straight to fantasizing about the sex even though the woman is a total stranger that offends you? (this would certain explain but not justify why rapes are so common, if a large percentage of men have similar mental urges)

Or is the discussion of exactly which secondary sexual characteristics?

How could he have phrased how he sees the world in a way that *doesn’t *offend you?

[SlackerInc]

I think it’s pretty clear that she does not want many men on the boards to talk frankly about how they see the world around them. Not even in IMHO.

[thorny_locust]

@DrDeth

Well, because that is- exactly what it is. There is a post, you dont like the post, you want it muzzled…

Who said it ought to be muzzled?

People said the specific language used ought to be called out. Including by the mods.

Nobody is saying the overall subject should be muzzled.

@Mean_Mr.Mustard

The poster, in his clunky way, was describing what goes through his mind and wondering if his theory that every man thinks this way is valid.

In soliciting such input (in his clunky way) it was necessary to describe these thoughts.

There’s no evidence that he was wondering whether his theory is valid. There is specific evidence that he wasn’t: as I said just above, in his post 86 in that thread. When he gets evidence from some of the men posting here that contradicts it, he says that they must just be reluctant to admit that they actually react and behave the same way that he does.

Even if he had been actually soliciting input, it wouldn’t have been necessary to describe the thoughts in detail.

And even if he had been actually soliciting input, that wouldn’t be a reason that the form he chose to do it in couldn’t be criticized.

@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?

Already done, although as a counterfactual:

@thorny_locust

The OP of the thread in question didn’t say that he has trouble concentrating on anything other than sex when in the presence of women, ask whether other men have this problem, and ask how to deal with it so that he can manage to get a day’s work done in a society that doesn’t lock women up out of the way someplace but instead considers us to be a normal part of the workplace, the marketplace, the traffic on the streets, and overall life in general. That’s a question that could have been discussed in a reasonable fashion…

[Sherrerd]

@DrDeth

Wow. I dont know what Op* you* read…:dubious:

Same one. It was a ‘hey, guys, you’re with me on this, right?’ message that carried the underlying assumption that We Have Every Right To Assert This.

@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?

Hypothetically, a man is concerned that he’s losing some control over his rationality due to his response to seeing an attractive woman in revealing clothing.

So he could post:

The other day I had an experience I have all the time–and I’m trying to figure out if this is just something I have to live with, or if there’s some other way I could be responding. Is this the way it is for all men? some men? What?

So I was out minding my own business, driving with my wife somewhere, and this young woman drives up on a scooter. She was very attractive and not fully covered with clothing, you might say. So immediately she was all I could think about.

My wife noticed and was annoyed. And I felt as though I wasn’t fully in control of myself—and I don’t like that feeling. Sure, it’s normal to be attracted to attractive people. We’re only human. But this is a degree of obsession that bothers me.

So is this the experience of all men? Some? What’s going on?

(made-up post)

Instead what became the foundation of that thread was a sort of humble-brag, as someone else posted. The underlying tone was ‘LOOK HOW TESTOSTERONE-LADEN I AM!’ And also ‘I AM A MAN AND I DON’T APOLOGIZE!’

It was a chest-thumping post disguised as a search for information.

[Chingon]

And with SamuelA and Slacker joining the conversation, we can probably call this a wrap.

[SlackerInc]

Ad hominem much? :dubious:

[SamuelA]

@Sherrerd

Same one. It was a ‘hey, guys, you’re with me on this, right?’ message that carried the underlying assumption that We Have Every Right To Assert This.

Hypothetically, a man is concerned that he’s losing some control over his rationality due to his response to seeing an attractive woman in revealing clothing.

So he could post:

(made-up post)

Instead what became the foundation of that thread was a sort of humble-brag, as someone else posted. The underlying tone was ‘LOOK HOW TESTOSTERONE-LADEN I AM!’ And also ‘I AM A MAN AND I DON’T APOLOGIZE!’

It was a chest-thumping post disguised as a search for information.

Thanks for the rephrasing and explaining how this poster could have expressed himself.

[Sherrerd]

@SamuelA

Thanks for the rephrasing and explaining how this poster could have expressed himself.

@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?

So now you don’t want anyone to address your question? It’s a bit unclear.