# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/61 "2018-09-05T03:46:30Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Yeah, I’m just sick that I didn’t call you and your bud UV out in a thread I never posted in and didn’t see until this thread started. > > Now you tell me why you plural assumed “stay focused” was a liberal’s objection to your objectification rather than an admonition to, say, stay on subject. Feelings of guilt? Deliberate baiting? Knee-jerking? Something must have triggered you. If you’ll read my comments about the moderation both in that thread and here, I think you’ll find that I don’t object to it if the moderating decision is that it’s off-topic, which was my initial impression. It seems, given the comments by mods in this thread, that my initial impression was mistaken. If the moderation is due to commentary about the physical appearance of non-posters, then I’d like to know where that line gets drawn. So far, we have this for “guidance”: > [@Bone](#): > > No long treatise needed on the matter. It was objectifying in a way that was unseemly since it was so off topic. I would have modded it too but JC beat me to it. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Trump has made himself a bit of an outlier. He engages in the sort of creepy language that is under discussion, thus making himself an obvious target for such comments. I would consider appearance questions or observations about Biden, Pence, Lynch, Sessions, Pelosi, Ryan, Schumer, McConnell, etc. to be out of bounds. > [@Chronos](#): > > Of course there’s a double standard. People go around making comments like this about women all the time, but hardly ever about men. That’s the double standard that we’re trying to fix, and which you’re apparently trying to perpetuate. > [@Bone](#): > > There is a stark contrast between a public figure like Trump or Pelosi and a random person that happened to be visible on TV at a public hearing. Those seem conflicted. Is it OK to call Sarah Palin or Melania Trump a “hot chick” because they’re public figures, but not ok to say the same about the junior-undersecretary-of-something-or-other? Or is it never ok to describe a woman as a “hot chick”? Or is it broader than that and we’re to cease all unnecessary references to a person’s physical appearance? Or just if the person is female? or not Trump? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/62 "2018-09-05T03:48:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > … a woman who is so anonymous that nobody here has yet mentioned her name… BTW, she was named in post #20. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/63 "2018-09-05T03:49:40Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Isn’t #1 more like “aspirational” values, rather than rules? That would have been my guess prior to this thread and the mod note that inspired it. ---
**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 5, 2018, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/64 "2018-09-05T04:06:16Z")
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. ---
**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 5, 2018, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/65 "2018-09-05T04:11:54Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Is referring to someone as a “hot dude” degrading? And has it ever been moderated? If I knew that some of you guys objected to it, I’d be supportive as well as report it. I haven’t seen any such objections. Unlike some people here, I’m not about to tell you what to think. Like I’ve said before, appearance hasn’t been used to objectify and discriminate against men nearly to the extent that it has women, so _my guess_ is it doesn’t bother men as much as it does us. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/66 "2018-09-05T04:16:23Z")
> [@Helena330](#): > > … Is the “right” to demean others like this even when they object really how you hold onto your power, as suggested above? … She didn’t object. AFAIK, she wouldn’t object to being called a “hot chick” either, given that she allowed herself to be profiled for The Hill’s “50 Most Beautiful” list. And it’s certainly not about “the right to demean others”, at least not for me. I’d be fine if the mods came out and said, “no more demeaning people based on their physical appearance” or “no more comments about the physical appearance of anyone at all”, but if posters are allowed to refer to Trump as “Cheeto” or McConnell as a turtle or GWB as “chimp”, I’d like to see some consistency. Either allow it, or don’t, but make up your minds, mods. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/67 "2018-09-05T04:24:59Z")
> [@Helena330](#): > > The point is that you and others find it necessary to comment on her appearance at all. It’s degrading. “Who is the woman in the blue dress who was pushed aside to put Condi Rice front and center?” is fine. > [@snfaulkner](#): > > OctocaineVires, how hard is it to just not be pervy and creepy? Why is it so hard to wrap your brain around that? Comment on appearances if you feel it necessary to the point you are trying to make , but don’t sexualize it as an aside. The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “degrading” is incredibly stupid. The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “creepy” is incredibly stupid. I freely admit it is theoretically possible that both of you are reasonable, rational creatures on other topics. It’s highly unlikely, but I cannot completely discount the possibility. But if you would refrain from saying anything more on this topic, the world would be much better off. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/68 "2018-09-05T04:31:20Z")
> [@Helena330](#): > > If I knew that some of you guys objected to it, I’d be supportive as well as report it. I haven’t seen any such objections. Unlike some people here, I’m not about to tell you what to think. Like I’ve said before, appearance hasn’t been used to objectify and discriminate against men nearly to the extent that it has women, so _my guess_ is it doesn’t bother men as much as it does us. Good thinking. Call a guy hot and it’s probably a complement. Say he’s a _nice guy_, and not so much, or at least not always. But call a woman nice… and it’s probably a complement. While this is extremely unfair, it shouldn’t distract us from the main victims in this thread: American male conservatives. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > AFAIK, she wouldn’t object to being called a “hot chick” either, given that she allowed herself to be profiled for The Hill’s “50 Most Beautiful” list. Newsflash: The Hill probably didn’t ask for permission. Also, Marie Claire did a profile of her: [INDENT] Zina Bash: White House Domestic Policy Councilmember She worked on the presidential campaign of Trump’s rival Senator Ted Cruz, but that seems to be water under the bridge. Now, the Harvard Law School and Wharton Business School grad focuses on regulatory reform for legal and immigration policy. Bash has thus far made headlines for things unrelated to her work, like her spot on the The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful list and for her high net-worth (in the millions). Soon after taking the White House job, she gave birth to her first child, a daughter, Mabel. [/INDENT] [Top Female White House Aides - Women Who Work for President Trump | Marie Claire](https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/g15226495/female-white-house-aides-working-for-trump/) Top 50 Most Beautiful isn’t her only claim to fame. She presumably also worked [del]to put children in cages[/del] on Trump’s immigration policy. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/69 "2018-09-05T04:34:15Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “degrading” is incredibly stupid. The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “creepy” is incredibly stupid. > > I freely admit it is theoretically possible that both of you are reasonable, rational creatures on other topics. It’s highly unlikely, but I cannot completely discount the possibility. But if you would refrain from saying anything more on this topic, the world would be much better off. What if we were talking about something…anything…and then your wife/girlfriend/mom/grandma/daughter walked by and I eyeballed her lustfully and turned to you and said “yeah, she’s really hot. I’d do her”? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/70 "2018-09-05T04:39:32Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “degrading” is incredibly stupid. The opinion that commenting on somebody’s appearance is “creepy” is incredibly stupid. > > I freely admit it is theoretically possible that both of you are reasonable, rational creatures on other topics. It’s highly unlikely, but I cannot completely discount the possibility. But if you would refrain from saying anything more on this topic, the world would be much better off. The opinion that it is stupid to protest the objectifying of someone as degrading and creepy is … well…incredibly stupid. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/71 "2018-09-05T05:27:59Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The woman in question is Zina Bash. “In July 2017, Bash was put on The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful list.” [Zina Bash Is the Woman Sitting Behind Brett Kavanaugh](https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/zina-bash/) > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Zina Bash: White House Domestic Policy Councilmember > > She worked on the presidential campaign of Trump’s rival Senator Ted Cruz, but that seems to be water under the bridge. Now, the Harvard Law School and Wharton Business School grad focuses on regulatory reform for legal and immigration policy. Bash has thus far made headlines for things unrelated to her work, like her spot on the The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful list and for her high net-worth (in the millions). Soon after taking the White House job, she gave birth to her first child, a daughter, Mabel. One thing no-one has yet noted about Bash, and the thing that is probably the most relevant to her presence at the hearing, is that she clerked for Brett Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Her husband also clerked for Kavanaugh, before going on to clerk for Alito on the Supreme Court. More generally, the whataboutism from the Oppressed White Men’s Club in this thread is hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/72 "2018-09-05T08:09:45Z")
To me, the rationalization is this: Trump, Barack Obama, George Bush, etc, were (by the very nature of their job) public figures. It didn’t take much for people to be able to place them by either seeing a picture of them or by hearing their name. And I remember hearing several people refer to Hillary Clinton’s “cankles” during Bill’s time in the White House. There were also a lot of jokes about Chelsea as an awkward teenager(in the first that comes to mind, Mike Myers- as Wayne Campbell- commented on Chelsea’s appearance by saying “while it’s true that adolescence has been thusfar unkind…”). If comments about a public figure’s looks aren’t germane to the conversation, howzabout we save it for the Pit? But I didn’t recognize this woman. And I doubt more than 35% of people could have named her just by looking at her. Public exposure(fairly or unfairly) plays a role in the way people are identified. All that said, I first thought this thread was going to be about the Rachel McAdams/Anna Faris/Rob Schneider movie of the same name. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/73 "2018-09-05T08:40:06Z")
I caught a bit of news that said she was doing something weird with her hands. I didn’t hear it all. Did anybody catch that? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/74 "2018-09-05T08:56:34Z")
disregard, wrong forum for that type of comment ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/75 "2018-09-05T13:44:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Trump has made himself a bit of an outlier. He engages in the sort of creepy language that is under discussion, thus making himself an obvious target for such comments. I would consider appearance questions or observations about Biden, Pence, Lynch, Sessions, Pelosi, Ryan, Schumer, McConnell, etc. to be out of bounds. > [@Bone](#): > > There is a stark contrast between a public figure like Trump or Pelosi and a random person that happened to be visible on TV at a public hearing. These two statement are in conflict. Such comments about appearance are, as I already noted, very common. Especially about men, but maybe because men are more numerous in government and even more numerous in conservative circles. It would be helpful to have a more definitive ruling going forward. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/76 "2018-09-05T13:54:30Z")
No. As previously stated - ad nauseum - bright lines are anathema to good moderation. Flexibility and context are, instead, the hallmarks of good moderation that is compatible with message board inclusivity. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/77 "2018-09-05T13:59:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If you’ll read my comments about the moderation both in that thread and here, I think you’ll find that I don’t object to it if the moderating decision is that it’s off-topic, which was my initial impression. It seems, given the comments by mods in this thread, that my initial impression was mistaken. > > If the moderation is due to commentary about the physical appearance of non-posters, then I’d like to know where that line gets drawn. So far, we have this for “guidance”: > > Those seem conflicted. Is it OK to call Sarah Palin or Melania Trump a “hot chick” because they’re public figures, but not ok to say the same about the junior-undersecretary-of-something-or-other? Or is it never ok to describe a woman as a “hot chick”? Or is it broader than that and we’re to cease all unnecessary references to a person’s physical appearance? Or just if the person is female? or not Trump? I note with some bemusement that you quote three mods, including all of the other GD and Elections mods, without actually quoting the mod who A) originated the mod note and B) already responded to earlier issues. Perhaps you have no proper response and would prefer to fire for effect. Nonetheless, as I stated earlier, I will not get drawn into a long discussion defining bright lines of what you can and can’t do. Such adds nothing to the boards and instead promotes a ‘rules lawyer’ culture of trying to define where lines are so one can walk right up to them. If you absolutely feel you must push limits? Well, feel free to try your luck. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/78 "2018-09-05T14:00:49Z")
I wasn’t asking for a bright line. I was asking for a more definitive ruling. But I think that is especially relevant because **tom’s** statement was framed as a bright line: " I would consider appearance questions or observations about Biden, Pence, Lynch, Sessions, Pelosi, Ryan, Schumer, McConnell, etc. to be out of bounds." ---
**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 5, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/79 "2018-09-05T15:09:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I simply ask for at least the fourth time: would “attractive woman” have gotten a mod note? Was this question ever answered? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2018, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766/80 "2018-09-05T15:12:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > She didn’t object. AFAIK, she wouldn’t object to being called a “hot chick” either, given that she allowed herself to be profiled for The Hill’s “50 Most Beautiful” list. Right. She asked for it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-hot-chick-moderated/820766.md?page=5)