My main takeaway from this thread is that a woman, followed by several women, are saying why the thread under discussion makes them feel uncomfortable, and they’re being told by a bunch of men why they’re wrong.
Sure she is, if the OP in that thread represented the exact thoughts in his mind.
ETA:
No one is telling them they are wrong to feel uncomfortable. Only that we don’t agree that in a board called IMHO, they have the right to be protected from ever seeing opinions that make them uncomfortable.
Where did I say they were wrong in that it made them feel uncomfortable? I agreed it could well do that. In fact, I dont see anyone saying that.
What I see is posters saying “Sure it made you uncomfortable, and that’s not good, but it didnt need to be moderated”- which is totally different.
Lots of discussions here make people feel uncomfortable.
You must be reading a different thread from me. The thread I’m reading immediately accuses the OP “projecting“, and there are attempts to argue with the woman about the definition of misogyny. I’m guessing the OP has a much better attuned sense of misogyny than a guy reading the dictionary.
There are also discussions about the appropriateness of the thread and IMHO, but that’s not my point.
If the definition of misogyny is expanded to include this kind of thing, what word do we use for someone like my cousin? He watches red pill YouTube videos and is constantly fulminating about how evil women are and how they are toxic menaces, and he needs to just “go his own way” (MGTOW) and all that crap. To me, that’s misogyny, not having lascivious fantasies about women.
Yeah, because it *wasnt *misogyny. Are you saying your sex determines a words meaning? :dubious:
I regret my own choice of words in the thread, even if it was with quotes to indicate an imitation of the OP.
I can’t deny that people of either gender that I pass by without real interaction (such as talking) do sometimes feel to me more like scenery, but I’m quite aware they’re actually people and if I did speak to them, I’d do so without a constant mental stream of “Look at that thing, that thing is amazing!” even if the person in question were the most beautiful woman in the world, wearing the world’s shortiest skirt.
I originally tried to word it only in terms of other *people *who would distract me momentarily for some reason, but felt the post was getting too wordy and complex and needlessly detailed, especially for the subject matter at hand. I probably should have stuck with that, though, or just not gotten involved.
I don’t think I would have posted at all, except the thread also seemed to be in some sort of alternate universe where homosexuality doesn’t exist. “Women can’t understand how attractive women can be!” “Women can participate by describing their reactions to sexy men!” Sigh.
Having lascivious thoughts about women, and posting about them in detail, are two different things.
Sounds like we need yet another dictionary definition post to clear things up.
This thread is a reason why I think it was a mistake for the board to go down this road of censoring “misogynistic” threads. There is simply no reason to limit this sort of discussion, even though I find it distasteful. I find many posts and posters distasteful.
This could and should have been handled simply. If you are offended by a poster or by a topic you have several options:
- Do not participate in the thread.
- Participate, but debate the poster or post.
- Pit the poster.
I simply see no reason why a new rule needed to be created when the offended posters have many ways to enjoy their experience here notwithstanding having to share the board with those of different values or opinions.
The cure of the new rule will cause new complaints such as this thread and will never stop until the board decrees that any discussion of women must conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters.
Don’t forget:
- Find a different internet forum with rules more to your liking. Like r/TwoXChromosomes/ . The mods there would have banned nate for that post.
This thread is following a very familiar pattern.
First a poster talks about how a particular post or poster is misogynistic in nature. Then the same few posters* rush in to tell the OP how wrong they are - usually posting many times in a short span. Specific instances are ignored, and the deniers instead talk of vague “political correctness” or “limiting speech” - rather than the particular concern the OP brought up in the first place. Those bringing up concerns of misogyny are basically told to just put up with it, ignore it, or “pit” the offending post or poster.
Round and round. Rather than, say, not tolerating misogynist posts or posters in the first place.
*A half-dozen or so. They’re quite active in this very thread.
From Industrial Psychiatry Journal:
Bolding mine. A dictionary definition doesn’t describe how misogyny or any other behavior manifests. The post in question was clearly misogynistic.
Cool. Now *which *rule of this forum says that misogynism is not allowed? Surely you are going to claim it’s hate speech. The stuff Don Draper says to women in his office is misogynistic. The stuff a KKK leader says during a meeting is hate speech. Order of magnitude difference. (and order of magnitude consequences. Sexual harassment or firing or even rape is bad, but a far lesser crime compared to lynching or being dragged to death or having a cross burned in your yard)
Rape isn’t as bad as having a cross burned in your yard. Gotcha.
I have some sympathy with the notion of an open board, less sympathy for phrases like “conform to the speech demanded by these minority of posters”, as though what works for the majority is de facto better. Like it or not, the Dope is in the tricky position of trying to figure out what works effectively for a whole community, which means some moderation…it’s why we have a “don’t be a jerk rule”, which everyone knows is difficult to define, but we live with it. But if you really believe in a message board in which the posters themselves police offensive content by responding (or not) to it, you’ll have to be comfortable with threads that have titles like “Women/black are stupid” etc. Which you might be.
Obviously depends on the scenario, but in the most commonly committed rapes, the victim doesn’t have a fear of death. Also, the attacker is generally a single man who can be reported and jailed.
While a black family who have a cross burned in their yard have a very reasonable fear that they may all be burned to death or shot by their racist neighbors, and that the police are in on it. Today, it’s even more streamlined - all their racist neighbors have to do is call the police, and each encounter is a dice roll against death because everyone now knows the police will kill on a hair trigger.
Fair point. I wonder if there are any human languages where a single word can have more than one definition?
DrDeth, you’re handy with a dictionary. Before you cut and paste the definition for misogyny again (and I assume there’s only one, or else you’d mix it up between posts), could you research this question?
Come on, y’all. This is ridiculous. Are you seriously missing the point that referring to women using object pronouns is a shitty thing to do? (Yes, “that” can be used for people, as in the sentence, “That is the tallest toddler I have ever seen in my life”; I trust folks can see the difference between that construction and, “I’d hit that.”)
I know women are pissed at this, but honestly as a dude I am, too. Sure, I have sexual thoughts. But it’s absurd to think that I can’t walk and chew gum at once, and that 98% of dudes are unable to function in society if they see someone they find sexually attractive. Men are more capable than that.
Most men, anyway.
Oh. Oh, you’re serious!
Because this is just bonkers. Has it occurred to you to, y’know, ask any rape survivor or any victim of a cross-burning about your theory? You might consider getting out of your own head.
Fine. So which is worse? Or are they both equally bad? Assuming you cannot order them, then I gave two sets of 3 bad things. One of the bad things overlaps between sets. The other 2 pairings have a clear ordering. Can you tell me which is worse, hate speech or misogyny? Also, are they the same thing or are they different?