I’ve been following these threads but I am confused by the definition of misogyny.
I started out thinking it was basically “hate/dislike/prejudice of women”, but I read posts where the issue seems closer to people just being inconsiderate as opposed to dislike. For example, re-directing a thread towards a related but not identical issue seems primarily inconsiderate. Whether the topic is cars or computers or the weather or things tied to biology, I would typically assume “inconsiderate” unless I saw something specific that seemed like “dislike.”
There are incidents that cross the line, but, for me, it’s not clear what the accepted definition is because many of the posts in these ATMB threads seem to include things I wouldn’t have put in that category.
Regarding the original thread/issue:
While there may be validity to exploring how two topics are alike, it also seems very reasonable to focus a thread on one topic and ask that a related topic have it’s own thread. That just seems to fall under the general “don’t be a jerk” rule (in the non-pit forums).
My serious answer is that it took a year or more of repeated discussion. People who weren’t impacted by the issue often didn’t see it at all. Those who were impacted either left, or lived with it. The discussions were painful, but ultimately helpful.
Start a thread (I used the Pit, for various reasons). Expect a long, heated exchange. Keep starting threads and keep the discussion alive. It’s frustrating, but until more people see it, and are vocal about it there will be no changes.
Twenty-ish years ago, my son (then in grade school) objected to my using the word “retard”. I remember explaining to him that it was a fine word to use! I actually thought it was his problem and he didn’t get it. He kept up trying to change my behavior, though.
Eventually he introduced me to a kid in his class who was mentally challenged. The boy was struggling to make it in life and my son was working hard at helping him. I’m glad my son didn’t give up on me.
If I recall, you’re an attorney, correct? Let me quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (regarding Jacobellis vs Ohio, and a definition of hard-core pornography):
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
The problem with “I’ll know it when I see it” when “it” refers to misogyny is that the people who produce it and promulgate it simply do not consider women to be an authority on ANYTHING, not even their own feelings and experiences in the world and therefore chafe to the point of near insanity at the very idea of any woman, anywhere, schooling or correcting them in any way. Which is, in itself, an excellent encapsulation of what misogyny is and how it operates in our society.
If you’re assuming the “I’ll know it when I see it” refers to the posters I agree but if used in its original context it was stated by an authority figure. If the mods here want to rule on the basis of “I’ll know it when I see it” that may not be a bad idea. It looks like they did a good job regarding the OP. Of course, it’s not my fight so my opinion on how good of a job their doing doesn’t mean much. I just thought I’d throw it in.
But are the receiver’s feelings the same as correctly identifying whether the sender is misogynyistic?
This is one of the websites I went to, and the descriptions on this page support the “hate/dislike” more than the acts that are driven by ignorance or inconsideration.
You’re confusing a couple of different things here. Actually, our “rule against racism” is parallel to our “rule against misogyny.”
What is being referred to here as our “rule against misogyny” is the fact that we have become more pro-active in moderating instances of disparaging women or inappropriately sexualizing them just because they are women. We’ve never tolerated disparaging remarks made about people solely because of their race, so we have a similar “anti-racism rule” in that sense.
What you seem to be referring to as a lack of a rule against racism is that we permit discussion of topics such as so-called “scientific racism” and similar topics. But we also have permitted discussion of topics such as why women are underrepresented in STEM fields or business leadership positions, in which misogynistic arguments such as women being biologically unsuited for them have been advanced. We also regularly see complaints by misogynist males complaining how unfair women are by refusing to have sex with them. So the policy on racism and sexism is similar here too.
You might not like the fact that we don’t ban racist arguments here, but it’s not fundamentally different than the policy on sexism/misogyny.
Actually, the serious ATMB discussion about the acceptability of discussions of scientific racism precedes the misogyny discussion. To put it crudely, free speech advocates (and racists) won the first battle while white conservative males lost the 2nd battle.
My old advice for Ibn Warraq, as a poster, was to respond to the scientific racists in GD with careful mockery and ridicule, while staying within the rules. He did so: he’s good at it actually.
I don’t think they want to give a definition. The policy loses a bit of it’s power to control others if it’s not as whimsical as “whatever strikes my fancy today”.
And of course this comment about a woman’s smell is met with deafening silence, while “the fairer sex” gets complained about. Why, if not because the subject of ridicule is a conservative?
Are you shitting me? He didn’t say she smells like coconuts, or like a warm glass of milk, or like literally anything gross that gets associated with women and/or with misogyny. He said that she smells like hypocrisy, using your very own metaphor.
You seriously can’t see why that’s not the same thing?
I’ll just refer you to what I said to UltraVires: If you feel this is all just a great mystery to you, and you don’t feel you can figure out general social norms that don’t seem to be a problem for 99.9% of posters to just stay well away from the subject. Given that youreceived a warning for making a joke about woman being raped at a traffic stop, you have demonstrated that your judgment in this regard is exceedingly poor. So really, your best recourse is just not to post on the subject.
You mean like how in 1984, Oceania didn’t have any laws, because that would limit the Party’s ability to arrest whoever it wanted to? I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with here. It’s more like if I visit your house and take a dump in the potted plant, you won’t invite me over again, even though you never warned me about the don’t-poop-on-the-Ficus rule.* This is a social club, and the unwritten rules of social relationships are unwritten because they’re too vague and subtle to pin down. What’s more, even though you may think you learned them as a child, they’re not the same today as they were 30 years ago. Don’t be a jerk. Don’t say things that a reasonable person should know would offend the average woman. (Or man.) What’s a jerk, and what’s reasonable? ::shrug::
A lot of people will cut you less slack for violations if they already hate your politics, but I do think it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and that you won’t be banned solely for saying affirmative action is racist, abortion is murder, or atheism leads to the lame-ass pseudoreligion of leftist PC progressivism. You just might be pitted.
*But can I pee on your furniture? What about blowing my nose on the dog?
Yes. This is why most posters are continually stumbling through a capricious blizzard of official warnings and threats, not knowing what the required standards of behaviour are from one hour to the next.
Example 1: There’s a woman on TV that I disagree with, yet I find her attractive. Weird.
MfM: Pretty mundane and pointless. I don’t know why you need to share it. But there’s some substance there, regarding the disconnect between (politely expressed) sexual attraction and good sense (from your POV- not necessarily others). Human condition, I suppose.
Example 2: That babe is hawt. Check out this pic! Yowza!
MfM: That’s not an argument, it’s a guttural response. All fine and well I say, but take it elsewhere: the internet has plenty of sex forums. Hell, you can do that on twitter.
Now variants of example 1 might receive mod attention. But there’s a bright and blinding line between 1 and 2, and if you can’t pick up on that, you had best avoid threads pertaining to sex.
