I wonder why men wouldn’t report/complain about attitudes like that. Measure for Measure is a real man and can deal with it, so obviously all men share his dominant group identity and can shoulder any attack a lesser group can throw at them.
Probably just me but at a certain level they’re just words and it is the intention at issue. I don’t think a distinction should be made between calling someone a whiny little bitch and a whiny little cunt. If you defame someone by calling them a Pommy it will probably slide but using the term nigger-rich will get at least a note from a mod for using the N word and not even for the insult saying they have a lot of stuff but no cash. And do we even start with calling a guy a pussy which compares him unfavorable as a woman insinuating that being a woman is inferior to being a man? How insulting is that to women in general?
That’s not overly different here. Most females have that kind of response particularly if it’s directed at them, but between men it can also be used in a non insulting sense as I exampled.
Sort of like the word “Bastard”. In some places that’s still a deadly insult, here it’s basically a term of endearment but certainly not an insult.
As I’ve said before, I’m not a moderator and I can’t speak on behalf of the board. But if I was asked to judge posts like these
I would probably let them slide. While they are clearly opinions which most people would disagree with, these posters do appear to be advocating a position not just seeking to harass people. So the solution would be to argue against the position they are presenting.
Yes. Racists can get away with making arguments that one group of people have lower IQs than another group if it’s relevant to the thread topic, doesn’t contain slurs, and so on. They can’t say “race is stupid.” That’s pretty much the difference between a post that makes an argument and one that just regurgitates an offensive stereotype.
My take with the posts that Little Nemo chose is that either both slide or both get modded. I think the problem is that some of this board (mods included?) would let the first one slide but mod the second one.
The best I’ve been able to figure out the rule here, it must go something like this:
We (board participants) are not supposed to “junior mod”, and if something offensive and moddable appears, we’re supposed to report it rather than argue with that poster – because arguing with a poster over a moddable post may be interpreted as “junior modding” and/or because it just tends to raise the temperature of the conversation and turn it into a trainwreck.
Yet, OTOH, sometimes one would like, instead, to respond to a post like those, and have a little bit of public debate over it. It would seem inappropriate to do that while simultaneously asking the mods to shut that poster up.
The conclusion seems to be: If there’s a post you really find offensive, you have the choice to report it (if you what to shut the guy up), or argue with it (if you want to make a public response), BUT NOT BOTH.
I don’t think that’s the moderators’ intent. The only time I’ve recalled them saying something about a post not being reported was when people were offering examples of old posts and asking why they weren’t modded. I believe they were explaining why an offensive post was sometimes missed - not suggesting that people had the option of handling problems on their own.
I don’t think the policy is that unclear. They laid it out:
So the only issue is whether or not a specific post fits the description.
Looking at the post others are questioning:
I don’t think it violates the policy.
The established principle has been that directing something at a group is not considered a personal insult even if other posts are members of that group. So saying that women are too emotional and lack the mental agility to participate in politics is insulting to women but it’s not directed at any specific poster here, even though many posters here are women.
And while it’s talking about gender, it’s not talking about sex. And the writer doesn’t appear to have meant it as a joke.
As I’ve said before the board is not trying to prohibit anything that could be interpreted as misogyny. They’re only trying to stop particular specific forms of misogyny.
As an example, if there was a thread about why women were more likely then men to vote for Obama in 2012, then a post that said, “This just shows that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they don’t understand the issues” would be misogynist but not prohibited. But a post that said, “This just shows that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they should be naked in my bed” would be a prohibited form of misogyny.
It’s worth noting that the person who wrote the above quoted excerpt being bandied about as an example of non-modded SDMB misogyny wrote it as their first ever post back in 2011, then wrote one more batshit insane conspiracy-laden post in another thread two hours later, and then was never heard from on the SDMB ever again.