Banned for talking candidly about hypergamy

Reward

I have been banned from thread for discussing female hypergamy - the tendency among women to date and marry men of equal or greater status, and suggesting that we make something of a false distinction when we criminalise and stigmatise prostitution, on the basis that I couldn't back up what I was saying and that female hypergamy is a hard and fast rule that all females engage in, which I never said.

Thread here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056134948

I was told I could not post my opinion unless I provided hard evidence and so I posted spending patterns that demonstrate that in the US, despite earning 75% of what men do women as a group control 80% all of spending and spend far more on themselves than men do, to prove the existence of a large male to female cash and asset transfer in relationships.
http://www.ewomennetwork.com/specialoffers/advertise.php

I also posted this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461511/Women-aspire-to-be-housewives-without-any-of-the-housework.html

I also posted a link to a discussion by women, to illustrate that what I was talking about was not uncommon. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/17/whore-stigma-makes-no-sense/


And from todays Telegraph (not posted on the thread)

"In a 52-page report published by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, Dr Hakim continued: “Women’s aspiration to marry up, if they can, to a man who is better-educated and higher-earning, persists in most European countries.
“Women thereby continue to use marriage as an alternative or supplement to their employment careers.

Dr Hakim said many women did not want to “admit” that they were looking for a higher earning partner. They even keep the fact secret from the men they are dating, she said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-women-really-want-to-marry-a-rich-man.html


The facts on the ground are consistent with what I was saying on the thread, and I believe that I have been censored for talking about something that is essentially taboo and politically incorrect. I complied with the requests to provide sources to back up my opinions, I never did say that female hypergamy was a hard and fast rule, which was the rational given for my ban and on that basis I'd like my ban to be lifted.

This is my first appeal, I hope I have included enough information.

Many thanks



Re. the additional rules added to the charter. Never did I say that all men are x or all women are y, I was only ever talking about measurable tendencies across the groups. I maintain that my position on female hypergamy, was misrepresented by some and misunderstood by others to mean that I was making hard and fast rules.

tbh

Hi Guys -

the issue is slightly complicated because, although this is a soc forum, traditionally it's been dealt with as a Sci forum. I'm the mod in question and also a cmod in sci.

Although it has traditionally been dealt with as a sci forum (as the forum originated in sci), there's no reason why this should continue to be the case and if nesf, scofflaw or now dades want to take a look at this as cmods, that's absolutely fine with me. Alternately, I'll wait until my input is requested from an admin.

Please note, I'm deliberately not commenting on the case until you clarify what way you'd like to play it, but I should just clarify that the OP wasn't banned from the forum, just asked not to post on the specific thread.

Also, while there is a specific charter entry now to deal with issues like this, that charter entry wasn't there at the time the OP posted.

Scofflaw

In this case, it seems that since you're specifically CMod for TGC, it would be more your specific jurisdiction, unless the user has any objection or particular preference.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Reward

Well, tbh has made his position clear to me on this once already ... I'm not outright objecting to him being in on the decision but appealing against a decision made someone to the person that made the decision in the first place seems a little odd.

Scofflaw

Reward wrote: »

Well, tbh has made his position clear to me on this once already ... I'm not outright objecting to him being in on the decision but appealing against a decision made someone to the person that made the decision in the first place seems a little odd.

Fair enough.

Since there isn't a ban/infraction involved, I had to read the thread through to find the issue, which presumably is the warning tbh posted saying that he would ban you if you continued to post on the thread.

Unfortunately, I can see why tbh has asked for that - your proffered opinion on the subject is dragging the thread wildly off-topic, and you really haven't backed it up with a level of evidence beyond the anecdotal. If you could offer a peer-reviewed anthropological or social science study, that would be one thing, but newspaper articles, blog posts, and the like don't offer the kind of evidence that raises something above the level of opinion.

Whether what you're saying is correct or not is not the issue - the problem is the lack of solid evidence for it, and the fact that, being an opinion, and having nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it, it is, in effect, a wild generalisation to claim that it is of wide applicability - and one that is highly provocative.

Again, if what you were saying were supported by proper evidence, it would be on-topic for the thread, which is how you've approached it - but in the absence of such evidence, it's a position that winds up as not much different in most people's eyes from saying "all women are really whores anyway". I think you can see why that's a provocative position to take - I'm not saying that's your position (one might have an essentially behaviourist view of human behaviour, which can lead quite naturally to a transactional view of all human relationships), I'm saying that's how most people will view the position. To demand evidence beyond the usual for what most people view as an extraordinary claim is perfectly reasonable.

I have no real option but to support the mod's position here - without solid evidence, the position you've taken is no more than your opinion, and one that's dragging the thread off-topic by virtue of being highly provocative.

cordially,
Scofflaw