Scant data aside, do you think you and sammy’s position helps?
If, as most or all of the women posters in this thread appear to be asserting, the toleration of the type of attitude expressed in the post in question that started this thread (as well as several of the recent posts), is leading to women being less likely to join and remain on this board, does this concern the mods at all? Do they plan to do anything about it?
As a man, I personally see nothing wrong with holding onto damning information on someone until it can be used to screw them over when the time is right. Businessmen do this all the time. Why don’t some of you whine about that as being political too?
So the husband who all the other wives think is so nice can’t be a wife beater, the priest who performed loving marriage ceremonies can’t be a pedophile, and the teacher who is everyone’s favorite can’t be a child molester.
Got it.
Also, what some are painting as political (why she came forward when she did), I’d describe as patriotic. He was being considered for virtually unchecked national power and felt she had to speak up, even at risk to herself.
You are obviously free to describe it however you would like to. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on a related matter though: Do you think those who describe it as “political” are being “misogynistic” in so doing? Should they be prevented from sharing their description on these boards?
That would require context beyond a single word.
To say that her motivations were political, in that she chose to speak up when she did in order to use political means to take him down, then yes. It is a common misogynistic trope that women use accusations of harassment and rape to hurt men, not that they speak up for justice and to alert people to a potential dangerous man.
To say it was political in the sense that it happened to be part of a political process (as opposed to leveling her accusations in a book, which would be literary or as part of investigative reporting, so it’d be journalistic), then probably not. But then you’d have to be really, really careful to explain that, since it plays into the trope I mentioned before.
It’s like calling a black person “lazy”. It doesn’t have to be racist, but since it plays directly into well known racist tropes, they’d better be really clear what they’re saying and challenge themselves why they’re choosing that descriptor. Implicit biases are real, and people often don’t realize they are playing into racism/sexist/antisemitic tropes because of how unconsciously we have all internalized them.
So, in the context of this specific discussion, yes I believe it is misogynistic. Whether overt or because of implicit biases (they’ve internalized the trope that women make sexual complaints all the time to take men down, so accusations like this are reflexively not credible) or explicit (they believe consciously that she is not credible because they overtly believe a nice guy can’t commit an assault, so she’s a liar), I can’t judge.
Dang, ITD took what ive been trying to say this whole time and put it into one eloquent, concise post. Bravo! That post should be stickied.
According to BanquetBear’s cite in [POST=21983019]post #189[/POST], the alleged crime is sexual assault. If the allegations are true, Kavanaugh did commit sexual assault, because that is the allegation. Sexual assault is broader than rape.
If you ask around, I think most people who identify with the #MeToo movement will differentiate themselves from believing a rape accusation. My understanding is that the point of #MeToo is to take allegations of rape and other sexual assault and harassment seriously, like any other allegation of a crime. That way, the authorities (police, HR, etc) can recognize serial rapists, harassers, etc.
If you don’t believe me, I suggest you start a poll to see who here thinks a mere allegation of rape should automatically overcome the presumption of innocence.
~Max
I prefer to approach this with Hanlon’s razor* in mind, at least so long as I think we have good faith here. As such I’m against disallowing that sort of post, at least when relevant.
If I take it as a fact that women are leaving the boards because they are uncomfortable with the content of such posts, as opposed to posts being made in bad faith, then so much worse for the women, in my opinion.
And if posts are being made in bad faith, then I think that’s actionable under rule #1. But because I’m relatively new here, I would need to see a workup showing bad faith, not just a vague “based on the history”.
…Does that make me a horrible person? I would like to hear why you disagree, Babale.
*“Do not attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity”, or in the context of this board, by ignorance.
~Max
Umm, that’s what the Kavanaugh hearings were. Why didn’t they make sure Ford’s story could be backed up by other witnesses or records or physical evidence before holding them? Because the allegations are enough. (and, surprisingly, in a court of law enough to convict)
And tons of threads that say he should be impeached, because these allegations obviously means he did it and therefore lied to Congress when he swore under oath that he didn’t.
I stand by my suggestion, but I wouldn’t mention Justice Kavanaugh in the poll. Keep it generic. That way you don’t have to worry about partisan feelings interfering with your poll.
If someone answers contrary to the conclusion you’ve drawn from their posts during the Kavanaugh thing, then that is an opportunity for you to pick their brains. (In a private message or a different thread.)
~Max
SamuelA - most of your posts in this thread are pretty objectionable, and go far beyond the statement that spawned this thread. Plus, you seem more interested in having a Ford/Kavanaugh discussion rather than one about the board or moderation. While that is the underlying subject of the comment in question, this isn’t the place to rehash that bit.
Misogyny, like racism, does not have to be conscious to be damaging, in fact it works best if the perpetrators feel both virtuous and innocent. Threads dealing with misogyny seem to invariably devolve into futile arguing with misogynist men who firmly believe that their beliefs are logical and sound and rational, and certainly not held because they are men, or because they instinctively hold onto their superiority as a class, and because they have never experienced misogyny themselves nor can imagine it in the slightest way. They are never convinced. That isn’t bad faith in the sense of deliberate and conscious, nor is it ignorance in the sense of never been exposed to this knowledge.
It isn’t exactly malice either. Smug, self-centered and extremely unempathetic, yes, but not exactly malice. Whatever you call it, it is effective at silencing women and driving them off this board, just as it drives them out of many kinds of public life.
If you are confronted with such men, who think themselves to be rational and virtuous, but are in fact wrong and smug and self-centered, yet still argue in good faith, how do you propose we move forward?
~Max
There isn’t a way for women to move such men forward, they must do that themselves.
I propose that the moderation staff sanction such behavior to act as a deterrent (and possibly a correction, for those able to engage in self-reflection). I thought this was already the policy, but apparently I was incorrect.
I think what you are saying is that women who leave the board come to this point, throw up their hands, and walk away. That’s the particular response that I think, so much worse for the women.
There are two alternatives, in my opinion. One, you can outlaw the sort of posts in question. Two, you can address the post directly.
The former option is the easy way out, but I think it is contrary to the mission of this place. By all accounts the man in question is ignorant if he argues in good faith while still being demonstrably wrong. The stated purpose of this message board is to fight ignorance, so why would we outlaw ignorant posts? To outlaw ignorant posts because they make people so uncomfortable that they leave the board? I mean, we can do that, it’s within the staff’s rights. But I think to do so would be contrary to the purpose of the board. IMO, of course.
The latter option has the benefit of fighting ignorance, or at least attempting to. The drawback is that it is an endless uphill battle. But, again, fighting ignorance is a never-ending uphill battle. It’s taking longer than we thought.
Just my thoughts.
~Max
Sanctioning people who disagree with one side of a political debate is certainly one way to run a discussion board. I don’t think it’d be a very good way, and I don’t think it’s the SDMB way, but that’s just my opinion.
If you asked that question about white people vs black people, you might see it from a useful perspective, although the situations are not exactly equivalent. In both cases, the white or male person is the one who must choose to do the work.
You may think that walking off is “so much the worse” for women. But it really isn’t. It’s so much the worse for men.
It’s pretty simple – I propose moderators sanction misogynistic and victim-blaming posts (regarding victims/survivors of sexual assault/rape/etc.). Whether they’re sincere, in “good faith”, out of ignorance, malicious, or otherwise.
I thought that was already the policy. And I thought the moderators had a pretty good handle on what is “misogyny”. I’m no longer confident that’s the case. Possibly it’s because of the moderation staff turnover, or maybe it’s due to something else. I hope the staff will reconsider their evaluation of this issue. I believe that toleration of the kind of post referenced in the OP could do significant long-term damage to the board.