# what's the "anti-misogyny policy"? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 14, 2018, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085 "2018-12-14T00:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/221 "2018-12-17T12:56:44Z")
> [@Penfeather](#): > > And yet you felt impelled to refer to your erection when describing a woman’s attractiveness. Here’s a hint: don’t refer to your erection when describing a woman’s attractiveness. It’s not that hard. Others have already remarked upon how quite witty this retort is. There’s something else going on in this post, and it’s worth mentioning. The sly level of snark and innuendo regarding someone’s male genitalia is only hilarious because **Penfeather** is referring to male genitalia. Reverse the genders of the poster and of the target of the remark and it’s straight-up misogyny - and would be Warning-worthy here on the SDMB. Witness the last few pages in this thread, where language being used regarding females of the species is being parsed until there’s no pulse left. A noble cause- hate speech has no place on the SDMB. That should include remarks about penises. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/222 "2018-12-17T13:03:03Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > A noble cause- hate speech has no place on the SDMB. That should include remarks about penises. Huzzah. No hating the D. Now can we move on to bigger and better things? ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/223 "2018-12-17T15:15:54Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I’m not feeling sorry for myself. > > A rule I knew nothing about got me a warning. It is what it is. > > I was following the old don’t be a jerk rule and that wasn’t good enough. > > Life goes on. They won’t ever get me again with a misogyny rule. I don’t have to be hit in the face twice. Dude, you literally were [mod noted for making a sexist joke less than a month ago](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=865878). ---
**Author:** ![Teuton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/teuton/32/3864_2.png) [@Teuton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teuton)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/224 "2018-12-17T15:23:57Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > As a starting point, I’d be interested to see a discussion on this. My imagination may be lagging right now, but I can’t think of exceptions that couldn’t be carved out explicitly. I’m on my phone so linking is hard, but I started a thread on this a couple of weeks ago. The conclusion I got was that it’s not nice to mock people’s appearance, but we’re not going to make rules against it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/225 "2018-12-17T15:38:21Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Do you have a suggestion? Feel free to propose something for this guidance. I thought I did that, but I’ll try again: > [@](#): > > … there ought to be a rule against commenting on physical appearance, or basing insults on the physical appearance of the person. … If that were clearly stated as a rule, I doubt \*\*aceplace57 \*\*would have started his “cute model” thread, sparing us the horrors contained within. It also means that the slobber-drool contained within the Kellyanne Conway thread would have to be foregone, but I don’t think there’s any great loss there. It was basically a list of women that got Doper’s motors going, not some grand intellectual discussion. If we’re trying to avoid objectifying women, that seems like a good starting point. At least it would be one piece of _clear_ guidance. Sure, there might be other ways that misogyny can creep into the site, and mods wouldn’t be constrained in using the other rules to control it when they see it elsewhere, but that would cut down significantly on one of the dumber thread types we’re semi-regularly subjected to. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/226 "2018-12-17T15:41:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, he’s not “saying that he got an erection”. He’s not saying he suffers from ED, or that she cured it “for him”. **Penfeather** said “… you felt impelled to refer to your erection when describing a woman’s attractiveness …” and that is false. Aceplace did not “refer to [_his_] erection”. Could you suggest a rule about misogyny that you would understand and feel comfortable with? By the way, banning all comments about physical appearances and/or features is a no-go for obvious reasons, and the bit about no insulting people due to their physical appearances? “I wasn’t insulting her when I said she was stacked like a brick shithouse!” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/227 "2018-12-17T15:44:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > … By the way, banning all comments about physical physical appearances and/or features is a no-go for obvious reasons… Why? What are these “obvious reasons”? Instead of playing coy, why don’t you try to spell them out? Will we be deprived of too many “orange cheeto” jokes? What’s the loss if we just say “no more commentary on physical appearance”? - apologies to Bone for the questions. I didn’t see an obvious way to rephrase this post to eliminate them. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/228 "2018-12-17T15:49:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Why? What are these “obvious reasons”? Instead of playing coy, why don’t you try to spell them out? Will we be deprived of too many “orange cheeto” jokes? What’s the loss if we just say “no more commentary on physical appearance”? > > - apologies to Bone for the questions. I didn’t see an obvious way to rephrase this post to eliminate them. People could neither start or participate in threads about changes they have made to their appearance, and any thread about discrimination due to color, size, shape or physical handicap would be banned. Could you suggest something a little less vague/all encompassing? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/229 "2018-12-17T16:23:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > People could neither start or participate in threads about changes they have made to their appearance, and any thread about discrimination due to color, size, shape or physical handicap would be banned. Could you suggest something a little less vague/all encompassing? First of all, it’s not “vague” at all. I can understand a request for something less “all encompassing”, but one of the key benefits of my proposed rule (at least in my eyes) is precisely that it is not “vague” at all. As for “any threads about discrimination due to color, size, shape or physical handicap would be banned”, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. One could still condemn being mean to a handicapped person or a brown-skinned person, or a large / pear-shaped person, without commenting on that individual’s physical appearance. Isn’t that what those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”)? I don’t recall many posts along the lines of “she doesn’t look all that pear-shaped to me” which would be prohibited by my rule. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/230 "2018-12-17T16:44:25Z")
> [@](#): > > One could still condemn being mean to a handicapped person or a brown-skinned person, or a large / pear-shaped person, without commenting on that individual’s physical appearance. Isn’t that what those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”)? First of all, I don’t recall any threads which consisted of vague “bigotry is wrong” posts-they usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed. As to your former statement, I’m not seeing how such a thread would work…unless your goal was to stifle conversations about specific issues concerning bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/231 "2018-12-17T16:55:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > … they usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed. … Do you have some particular threads in mind? Could you provide links to them? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/232 "2018-12-17T17:03:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you have some particular threads in mind? Could you provide links to them? That was a response to your original claim of > [@](#): > > Isn’t that what those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”)? , so I believe the onus is on you to cite _your_ claim with some examples. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/233 "2018-12-17T17:11:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That was a response to your original claim of , so I believe the onus is on you to cite _your_ claim with some examples. At the risk of incurring more of **Bone** ’s ire, the quoted portion of my post is a question. You’re saying the onus is on me to answer my own question. I don’t see it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/234 "2018-12-17T17:15:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > At the risk of incurring more of **Bone** ’s ire, the quoted portion of my post is a question. You’re saying the onus is on me to answer my own question. I don’t see it that way. Then where did you get the idea that "those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”? What have you seen that gave you that thought? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/235 "2018-12-17T17:17:20Z")
You know what a rhetorical question is, dude. Don’t pretend otherwise. The answer to your “question” is, of course, “no.” ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/236 "2018-12-17T17:21:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > People could neither start or participate in threads about changes they have made to their appearance, and any thread about discrimination due to color, size, shape or physical handicap would be banned. Could you suggest something a little less vague/all encompassing? The rule could be rephrased to disallow any comments on another individual’s appearance without their explicit invitation. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/237 "2018-12-17T17:22:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then where did you get the idea that "those threads usually consist of (post after post of “bigotry is wrong”? What have you seen that gave you that thought? It was a bit of guesswork based on my perception of the SDMB as primarily a left-wing venue filled with virtue-signaling. You’ve claimed my guesswork is faulty and that, in reality those threads “usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed”. I’ve asked you for a cite, or even an example of such a thread. Do you have one? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/238 "2018-12-17T17:23:31Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > The rule could be rephrased to disallow any comments on another individual’s appearance without their explicit invitation. I’d support this modification. If a Doper wants to share their recent weight-loss success, for example, and invite others to celebrate with them, or solicit opinions about their new hair style, those could be exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/239 "2018-12-17T17:25:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It was a bit of guesswork based on my perception of the SDMB as primarily a left-wing venue filled with virtue-signaling. > > You’ve claimed my guesswork is faulty and that, in reality those threads “usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed”. I’ve asked you for a cite, or even an example of such a thread. Do you have one? If that’s all you’ve got to support that “question” then I don’t have to give cites to contradict you, since you have provided absolutely nothing of substance to contradict. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2018, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085/240 "2018-12-17T17:26:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You know what a rhetorical question is, dude. Don’t pretend otherwise. > > The answer to your “question” is, of course, “no.” Ok, the answer is “no”, which brings us back to “they usually get into detail about what bigotry is being discussed”. If that’s true, I’d like to see some examples to inform my own opinion about whether the absence of such threads substantially harms the SDMB. It’s possible that such threads are so plentiful and contain such significant intellectual discussion about the nuances of bigotry that I’ll become convinced that my proposed rule will leave us with a significant loss and abandon the proposal. Do _you_ have any examples of such threads? Or are we discussing unicorns and objecting to my proposed rule because it will scare away all such unicorns? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-anti-misogyny-policy/826085.md?page=13)