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:
If your “gotcha” requires willful ignorance of the point, then maybe it isn’t such a great “gotcha” after all.
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.
It wasn’t a bar, it was a confirmation hearing, which is the point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter how they categorize it. Hypocrites usually don’t realize they are being hypocritical.
You left it out with respect to commenting on hypocrisy.
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”.
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 this 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.
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…
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…
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.
In reference to objectifying women just being wrong
I’m just going to leave that there…enough said.
I live in hope.
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.
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?