# Why is "hot chick" moderated? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 4, 2018, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766 "2018-09-04T21:43:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/181 "2018-09-06T14:14:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If we were buddies in real life and it was just us, that may be passable. If there was another random person there it would transform the situation to me being embarrassed for you and commenting to cool it. If we didn’t know each other I’d think it a pretty douchey comment and disassociate myself with you. Context. Hold on a second. Are you really saying that if you two were in a bar with another person, and he spotted an attractive woman entering the bar and said “hey, look at that hot chick that just came in!”, you would say “Hey, you better cool it!” :dubious::dubious: ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/182 "2018-09-06T14:20:21Z")
If your “gotcha” requires willful ignorance of the point, then maybe it isn’t such a great “gotcha” after all. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/183 "2018-09-06T14:22:48Z")
As long as it’s a two-way street, what’s the problem? If women are admonished for calling guys “hunks” or “beefcakes”, etc, then it is an equal playing field. That should suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/184 "2018-09-06T14:32:44Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Hold on a second. Are you really saying that if you two were in a bar with another person, and he spotted an attractive woman entering the bar and said “hey, look at that hot chick that just came in!”, you would say “Hey, you better cool it!” > > :dubious::dubious: It wasn’t a bar, it was a confirmation hearing, which is the point. ---
**Author:** ![Amara\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7993a0/32.png) [@Amara\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amara_1)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/185 "2018-09-06T14:57:56Z")
> [@Helena330](#): > > **It’s not about politics.** I’ve defended conservative women on Twitter because of comments about their appearance, and I’m extremely liberal. **It’s about not describing people, a woman in this case, by her physical attributes.** Why are some of you so desperate to cling to this??? Is the “right” to demean others like this even when they object really how you hold onto your power, as suggested above? > > **Ultra Vires** , one more time: “The woman in the blue dress…” You’re a lawyer so you’re not stupid. The only conclusion I can draw is not demeaning women is somehow threatening to you. Agreed with all of the above with the caveat that it isn’t so much as describing a woman by her physical attributes but describing a woman by her\* desirability\*. That’s objectifying in most environments. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/186 "2018-09-06T15:18:09Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Insulting someone by saying you want to have gay sex with them can be seen as homophobic. I get that. But it’s not necessarily _hypocritical_, though. > [@](#): > > Insulting someone sexually in a thread about misogyny is especially inappropriate. Oh, agreed. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s appropriate. > [@octopus](#): > > What’s the so-called offense with “hot chick”? “So-called” only deserves a :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It’s a few people who have embarked on a quest that recently started with Skald’s posts may feel “unwelcome.” You \*did \*read the multiple threads about it, right? The ones that indicated this was a problem for the board _long_ before Skald’s particularly egregious examples. > [@](#): > > Posts like those of snfaulkner do not appear conducive to an atmosphere of universal welcoming. And is ATMB the place for mocking, which is a not welcoming as well, other posters? They were completely inappropriate. But not an example of the same sexism objected to initially. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/187 "2018-09-06T15:26:01Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I get that. But it’s not necessarily _hypocritical_, though. You left out the part of my post that indicated why it was hypocritical. Using sexuality to insult someone in a thread about why sexual references might be disrespectful is hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/188 "2018-09-06T15:32:05Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > You left out the part of my post that indicated why it was hypocritical. Using sexuality to insult someone in a thread about why sexual references might be disrespectful is hypocritical. Not _necessarily_. Some people might compartmentalize homophobia and misogyny as two separate classes of insult. Sure, you can say “they’re both sexual”, but they’re not sexual\* in the same way\*. And I didn’t leave anything out. I quoted it right below. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/189 "2018-09-06T15:34:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I get that. But it’s not necessarily _hypocritical_, though. > > Oh, agreed. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s appropriate. > “So-called” only deserves a :rolleyes: > You \*did \*read the multiple threads about it, right? The ones that indicated this was a problem for the board _long_ before Skald’s particularly egregious examples. > They were completely inappropriate. But not an example of the same sexism objected to initially. The premise is so-called objectification of women is wrong because it may make some feel bad and unwelcome thus the crude and direct sexual language is wrong because it may make some feel bad and unwelcome. Unless, of course, it’s fine for some to feel bad and unwelcome but not others. That’s why the posts undermine the complaint. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/190 "2018-09-06T15:54:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Not _necessarily_. Some people might compartmentalize homophobia and misogyny as two separate classes of insult. Sure, you can say “they’re both sexual”, but they’re not sexual\* in the same way\*. It doesn’t matter how _they_ categorize it. Hypocrites usually don’t realize they are being hypocritical. > [@](#): > > And I didn’t leave anything out. I quoted it right below. You left it out with respect to commenting on hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Helena330](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/helena330/32/531_2.png) [@Helena330](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena330)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/191 "2018-09-06T16:14:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Who appointed you to speak for all women? I’m not trying to be a smartass, but just because you are ultrasensitive about this, why does your view control? Thank you for biting. I knew you would only comment on that part of my post. Once again, do your own research on this subject in this very forum. You’ll find that my position is held by many here, and not just women. I feel quite comfortable saying “we”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/192 "2018-09-06T16:51:50Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > The premise is so-called objectification of women is wrong because it may make some feel bad and unwelcome Still with the “so-called”. And objectification of women is just wrong, it’s not wrong “because…”. It’s something we shouldn’t encourage here because of those effects, but that’s not why it’s wrong. > [@](#): > > Unless, of course, it’s fine for some to feel bad and unwelcome but not others. I see nothing wrong with that stance in principle. I suspect nobody does, they just differ on who they feel should be made unwelcome. > [@Colibri](#): > > It doesn’t matter how _they_ categorize it. It does if they’re actually capable of defending that stance (I’m not saying \*\*faulkner \*\*is , I highly doubt that.) > [@](#): > > Hypocrites usually don’t realize they are being hypocritical. But some people are also quick to shout hypocrisy when two behaviours are not similar enough to warrant the accusation. You just have to look at [a thread like thi](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=861589)s to see that. Making crude sexual comments to rile up an opponent in an already antagonistic discussion is not the same thing as making passing sexist observations in a political thread. > [@](#): > > You left it out with respect to commenting on hypocrisy. I didn’t “leave it out”, I quoted it where it better suited a different point, having already given my opinion on hypocrisy in the sentence above. The way you’re phrasing it, as me having “left it out”, amounts to an accusation of deliberate evasion, and I resent that. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/193 "2018-09-06T17:08:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It does if they’re actually capable of defending that stance (I’m not saying \*\*faulkner \*\*is , I highly doubt that.)But some people are also quick to shout hypocrisy when two behaviours are not similar enough to warrant the accusation. You just have to look at [a thread like thi](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=861589)s to see that. > > Making crude sexual comments to rile up an opponent in an already antagonistic discussion is not the same thing as making passing sexist observations in a political thread. > I didn’t “leave it out”, I quoted it where it better suited a different point, having already given my opinion on hypocrisy in the sentence above. > > The way you’re phrasing it, as me having “left it out”, amounts to an accusation of deliberate evasion, and I resent that. Whatever. You’re nitpicking the exact reason that a comment that you agree was inappropriate was wrong, so have at it if you must. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/194 "2018-09-06T17:11:04Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Still with the “so-called”. > > And objectification of women is just wrong, it’s not wrong “because…”. It’s something we shouldn’t encourage here because of those effects, but that’s not why it’s wrong. > I see nothing wrong with that stance in principle. I suspect nobody does, they just differ on who they feel should be made unwelcome. > > It does if they’re actually capable of defending that stance (I’m not saying \*\*faulkner \*\*is , I highly doubt that.)But some people are also quick to shout hypocrisy when two behaviours are not similar enough to warrant the accusation. You just have to look at [a thread like thi](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=861589)s to see that. > > Making crude sexual comments to rile up an opponent in an already antagonistic discussion is not the same thing as making passing sexist observations in a political thread. > I didn’t “leave it out”, I quoted it where it better suited a different point, having already given my opinion on hypocrisy in the sentence above. > > The way you’re phrasing it, as me having “left it out”, amounts to an accusation of deliberate evasion, and I resent that. Intrinsically wrong is your subjective opinion. In the context of running a message board and creating rules and moderating it’s wrong, supposedly, because of the perceived negative effect here. If the goal is to make broad groups of people feel comfortable, welcome, and other fuzzy feelings than cracking down on all broad brush derogatory language should be what is advocated. But what we see is a consistent movement to have a set of different standards justified with cliches such as punching up vs punching down. How about being civil and not punching at all? With regards to the exact specific of causing offense, why do people insist on details being 100% exact before a comparison can be made? By that standard the only relevant and acceptable examples have to be identical to what is being discussed. That is a silly and artificially high standard used to make general discussion impossible. Armed robbery with a club vs armed robbery with a knife shouldn’t lead to an in-depth discussion about the effect of the crime being ignored to focus on the weapon. I know, I know. Robbery and message board discussions aren’t the same thing… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/195 "2018-09-06T17:12:13Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Whatever. Someone tells you they resent you accusing them of deliberate evasion and your comeback is “Whatever”? There’s more of that top-quality modding that keeps the membership growing… ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/196 "2018-09-06T17:12:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How about: Don’t describe a person’s sexual attractiveness in a thread that has nothing to do with that person, with sex, or with attractiveness. > [@Helena330](#): > > Here’s a rule for you that’s foolproof. Don’t comment on sexual attractiveness unless it’s to a woman with whom you’re in a relationship. You will NEVER get in trouble. OK? Glad I could help. > > Bullshit like you’re spewing is why women feel unwelcome here. > [@Bone](#): > > I wouldn’t call your comment mysoginy per se, but **it was a bit gross and demeaning**. Emphasis mine > [@octopus](#): > > What’s the so-called offense with “hot chick”? It’s a few people who have embarked on a quest that recently started with Skald’s posts may feel “unwelcome.” Posts like those of snfaulkner do not appear conducive to an atmosphere of universal welcoming. And is ATMB the place for mocking, which is a not welcoming as well, other posters? I realize you’ve shown yourself to be hopeless in understanding this in other threads, but: _her attractiveness – or lack thereof – had no relevance to the thread_. By calling her a “hot chick in the blue dress” instead of “the woman in the blue dress”, she is turned into an object rather than a person. When you objectify someone in that manner, you (the generic you) perpetuate the idea that they exist simply for your consumption, rather than living a life that is for themselves. Do you see how that could be offensive? > [@Amara\_1](#): > > Agreed with all of the above with the caveat that it isn’t so much as describing a woman by her physical attributes but describing a woman by her\* desirability\*. That’s objectifying in most environments. Also this. > [@Helena330](#): > > Thank you for biting. I knew you would only comment on that part of my post. Once again, do your own research on this subject in this very forum. You’ll find that my position is held by many here, and not just women. I feel quite comfortable saying “we”. I agree with Helena330. If you had said “woman” instead of “hot/attractive chick/woman” there would have been no offense to take. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/197 "2018-09-06T17:14:07Z")
In reference to objectifying women just being wrong > [@octopus](#): > > Intrinsically wrong is your subjective opinion. I’m just going to leave that there…enough said. ---
**Author:** ![SisterCoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@SisterCoyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SisterCoyote)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/198 "2018-09-06T17:20:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > In reference to objectifying women just being wrong > I’m just going to leave that there…enough said. I live in hope. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/199 "2018-09-06T17:22:22Z")
> [@SisterCoyote](#): > > Emphasis mine > > I realize you’ve shown yourself to be hopeless in understanding this in other threads, but: _her attractiveness – or lack thereof – had no relevance to the thread_. By calling her a “hot chick in the blue dress” instead of “the woman in the blue dress”, she is turned into an object rather than a person. > > When you objectify someone in that manner, you (the generic you) perpetuate the idea that they exist simply for your consumption, rather than living a life that is for themselves. > > Do you see how that could be offensive? > > Also this. > > I agree with Helena330. If you had said “woman” instead of “hot/attractive chick/woman” there would have been no offense to take. Yeah, I see how it can be offensive and you typically don’t see me posting in that style. But the question is this, is this message board a so-called safe place where every reader is protected from any potential offense? If so, that’d be awfully useless and boring. Especially when debating politics and other contentious issues, If the level of acceptable discourse, as an example, is to call republicans evil, traitors, stupid, in-bred etc. without an eyebrow being raised or a protest being howled I think the random mention of a “hot chick” or a comparison between Daphne and Velma shouldn’t be an issue. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2018, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/200 "2018-09-06T17:24:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > In reference to objectifying women just being wrong > I’m just going to leave that there…enough said. So what? You aren’t making any coherent points. Attacking mods and not understanding what you are quoting or arguing against is accomplishing what exactly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766.md?page=11)