There is a thread in AH that is allowing offensive language about women

Dades

username123 wrote: »

Sometimes its obvious that action has been taken (yellow or red card or a mod comment on thread) but there seems to be no way to distinguish between an infraction (ie, not a yellow or red card) and no action. Theres also no way to distinguish between no action because no action was deemed necessary, and no action because no one has seen the report.

Im not sure of the best way around it tbh.

This has been discussed several times here in Feedback. It's asking too much of mods to have to explain their actions to post-reporters, or of the system to have something automated in place. "Actioning" a post can come in many ways, and the practice of modding doesn't lend itself to a dropdown list. Also, some people are over-sensitive and report half the posts they read, which leads to a lot of posts that are unactioned simply because they don't warrant any action.

If a post is obviously over the line but not sanctioned in a reasonable period of time, then flag it again, or PM a mod.

Wibbs

I'm surprised this has gone this far TBH. As Seamus noted offence by proxy indeed. So if I say "this fat bastard deliberately knocked over our pints in the pub last night" this is labeling all men?* Ehhhhh. No. It's not. Anyone who would equate a descriptive in the singular to the whole needs to have a wee rethink I would say.

However it seems if I said "this fat bitch deliberately knocked over our pints in the pub last night" it apparently labels all women? Eh... wut? I'd love to know where this line of thinking has it's origins and process. Maybe it's the "fat" part that's giving the sensitive the hump. "Fat shaming" or somesuch nonsense. OK so would it be ok if I said "this skinny bitch deliberately knocked over our pints in the pub last night"? I don't think "skinny shaming" has any currency yet. Then again I'm not so current with the shifting sands that is Newspeak these days.

BTW I've heard a man being described as a "dirty headed scanger", so who gets offended then? All men? People allergic to Head & Shoulders?

username123 wrote:

Im failing to see the point of reporting threads or posts tbh.

More often than not nothing at all happens so you wonder if anyone even saw your report.

Even on busy forums it's difficult for a mod to avoid reported posts. You get an email notification for a start. When a team of mods is involved, especially as large a team as is present on AH, then you can be sure they're looked at. However just because someone reports a post it doesn't automatically follow that they get actioned. The mod team will usually have a confab particularly on a potentially contentious thread and come to a group decision. Now given that AH has certainly cracked down on sexist posts and some have even whined they're too overbearing on this point(I'm not among that number), then it follows that an unactioned report wasn't worthy of action in that case as far as the mods were concerned. Simply put I'd say they reached the same conclusion as most onlookers that an individuals description was not an entire genders.




*if we take the coarse language part out of it

Artful_Badger

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm surprised this has gone this far TBH. As Seamus noted offence by proxy indeed. So if I say "this fat bastard deliberately knocked over our pints in the pub last night" this is labeling all men?* Ehhhhh. No. It's not. Anyone who would equate a descriptive in the singular to the whole needs to have a wee rethink I would say.

However it seems if I said "this fat bitch deliberately knocked over our pints in the pub last night" it apparently labels all women? Eh... wut? I'd love to know where this line of thinking has it's origins and process. Maybe it's the "fat" part that's giving the sensitive the hump. "Fat shaming" or somesuch nonsense. OK so would it be ok if I said "this skinny bitch deliberately knocked over our pints in the pub last night"? I don't think "skinny shaming" has any currency yet. Then again I'm not so current with the shifting sands that is Newspeak these days.

BTW I've heard a man being described as a "dirty headed scanger", so who gets offended then? All men? People allergic to Head & Shoulders?


Even on busy forums it's difficult for a mod to avoid reported posts. You get an email notification for a start. When a team of mods is involved, especially as large a team as is present on AH, then you can be sure they're looked at. However just because someone reports a post it doesn't automatically follow that they get actioned. The mod team will usually have a confab particularly on a potentially contentious thread and come to a group decision. Now given that AH has certainly cracked down on sexist posts and some have even whined they're too overbearing on this point(I'm not among that number), then it follows that an unactioned report wasn't worthy of action in that case as far as the mods were concerned. Simply put I'd say they reached the same conclusion as most onlookers that an individuals description was not an entire genders.




*if we take the coarse language part out of it

Would you not agree with the AH mods that the OP was offensive then ? If so what about was offensive ? Because it seems to me to be precisely what you're dismissing in your post. Referring to the woman as a "Fat bitch".

Once the term is established from the outset as simply a reference to the fact she was a fat girl and not just some horrible person then I can perfectly understand how there is confusion over what's meant when its reiterated throughout the thread.

I can understand the argument that it may be over sensitive to make this much of an issue over it and the mods cleaned it up and all was well with the world. But there certainly existed an issue in relation to what's been highlighted here. And once highlighted then regardless of what so many people seem to think there is nothing wrong with discussing it.

Wibbs

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Would you not agree with the AH mods that the OP was offensive then ? If so what about was offensive ? Because it seems to me to be precisely what you're dismissing in your post. Referring to the woman as a "Fat bitch".

My point is that it is descriptive of one individual. It is not a reflection on an entire gender which is the suggestion. You'd have to do some mental gymnastics to claim it was. Even the gender neutral term "skanger" was been put forward as somehow "sexist". How does that work then?

As I said would this thread even exist if she had been described as a "skinny bitch"? I doubt it. Would this thread or one like it have kicked off if it was a bloke in the OP, who was described as a "fat bastard" or even a "skinny bastard"? Again I doubt it.

Artful_Badger

Wibbs wrote: »

My point is that it is descriptive of one individual. It is not a reflection on an entire gender which is the suggestion. You'd have to do some mental gymnastics to claim it was. Even the gender neutral term "skanger" was been put forward as somehow "sexist". How does that work then?

Ignoring skanger as it seems to be what most people are arguing about despite "fat bitch" being the main issue. Bitch is a derogatory term for a woman and it carries a lot more weight than calling a man a fat cúnt which is simply an insult. I don't understand how this is disputable, calling a woman who's done nothing to you (which the woman hadn't to the OP at that point in the story, he even changed it to "wide bodied lady" after getting carded which further highlights how he was using it) a bitch is derogatory.

Now I can perfectly see your point that it was directed at an individual and subsequently used to describe the woman because of what she did. But its not exactly unfathomable I dont think to see where people took issue given the OP's first usage of the term.

As I said would this thread even exist if she had been described as a "skinny bitch"? I doubt it. Would this thread or one like it have kicked off if it was a bloke in the OP, who was described as a "fat bastard" or even a "skinny bastard"? Again I doubt it.

"skinny bitch" imo may have resulted in a similar view who knows, maybe the "fat" part added some weight (excuse the pun) to the issue. Fat/skinny bastard in relation to a man wouldn't have because bastard doesn't carry the same connotations as bitch when used to refer to a woman.

As I said its probably a bit much than the thread was ever worth but I dont think its completely bereft of an argument.

Amirani

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Ignoring skanger as it seems to be what most people are arguing about despite "fat bitch" being the main issue. Bitch is a derogatory term for a woman and it carries a lot more weight than calling a man a fat cúnt which is simply an insult. I don't understand how this is disputable, calling a woman who's done nothing to you (which the woman hadn't to the OP at that point in the story, he even changed it to "wide bodied lady" after getting carded which further highlights how he was using it) a bitch is derogatory.

Prick is a derogatory word towards men, at least as much as bitch is for women. I wouldn't be offended if some random guy was called a prick, would you? Its not an attack on all men, it's an attack on one man.

How is using the word bitch to descibe one woman derogatory to all women?

Artful_Badger

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Prick is a derogatory word towards men, at least as much as bitch is for women. I wouldn't be offended of some random guy was called a prick, would you? Its not an attack on all men, it's an attack on one man.

How is using the word bitch to receive one woman derogatory to all women?

Prick is an insult. When used to refer to a man its got one meaning. It means the man is an asshole etc.

Bitch is different. It carries with it several different meanings depending on how its used. Seamus argued it wasnt like other derogatory terms such as nígger, fag etc and wasnt used as such in Ireland. I'd disagree completely on that. It most certainly can be used as those other terms are used and it most certainly is used in Ireland to speak down to women and it has been for a very long time.

If I see a woman and I say "Look at that bitch". What am I saying ? Am I calling her an unpleasant person ? How could I be when I dont know her and she's done nothing to me. In that scenario I'm referring to her as a bitch because she's a woman. And its denigrating her for that fact. The same as "Look at that fag". Highlighting the fact they are gay as a belittling factor.

And that's exactly how the OP used it when first referring to the girl who hit his friend. He was dancing, looking for his hole and danced with a "fat bitch". And that's what leaves open the interpretation that it was sexist.

Now I'd agree most other references to her as a fat bitch were merely insulting her character on the ground she acted like an unpleasant person. But again I'd reiterate given the initial usage I dont find it that hard to see where the confusion came from.

Czarcasm

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Prick is a derogatory word towards men, at least as much as bitch is for women. I wouldn't be offended if some random guy was called a prick, would you? Its not an attack on all men, it's an attack on one man.

How is using the word bitch to descibe one woman derogatory to all women?

In terms of context Diego, words like bitch, bastard, etc, carry a specific meaning and convey a sexist attitude, and all throughout that particular thread there are numerous examples of sexist attitudes on display, the very same as the sexist attitudes on display in other threads in AH, directed at both genders.

I personally couldn't care less about the sexism on display, but when a poster tries to claim that it's their right to commit violence against another person in the name of 'equality', that's a ridiculous assertion and you have to wonder why they wouldn't advocate treating all genders with respect instead of itching to drop a fat cnut like the twin towers.

bumper234

Czarcasm wrote: »

In terms of context Diego, words like bitch, bastard, etc, carry a specific meaning and convey a sexist attitude, and all throughout that particular thread there are numerous examples of sexist attitudes on display, the very same as the sexist attitudes on display in other threads in AH, directed at both genders.

I personally couldn't care less about the sexism on display, but when a poster tries to claim that it's their right to commit violence against another person in the name of 'equality', that's a ridiculous assertion and you have to wonder why they wouldn't advocate treating all genders with respect instead of itching to drop a fat cnut like the twin towers.

How is bastard a sexist remark?

Czarcasm

bumper234 wrote: »

How is bastard a sexist remark?

It's not a sexist remark in and of itself bumper, but in a certain context, it can be, like the often worn out cliche espoused by some women that "all men are bastards", simply because they met one guy who fcuked them over. It's the attitude is more tiresome to me than it is offensive, because it comes off as very immature.

Then there are some people who can't wait to get up on their high horse if someone refers to a man as a fat bastard, because they claim it's sexist (like calling a woman a fat bitch is any better?). Like I said - context, because some people I know like to be called bitches and bastards. They're hardly representative of the majority though, and shouldn't be put forward as such, when the majority of people would generally see such terms used to describe a person as completely unnecessary derogatory adjectives.

Amirani

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Prick is an insult. When used to refer to a man its got one meaning. It means the man is an asshole etc.

Bitch is different. It carries with it several different meanings depending on how its used. Seamus argued it wasnt like other derogatory terms such as nígger, fag etc and wasnt used as such in Ireland. I'd disagree completely on that. It most certainly can be used as those other terms are used and it most certainly is used in Ireland to speak down to women and it has been for a very long time.

If I see a woman and I say "Look at that bitch". What am I saying ? Am I calling her an unpleasant person ? How could I be when I dont know her and she's done nothing to me. In that scenario I'm referring to her as a bitch because she's a woman. And its denigrating her for that fact. The same as "Look at that fag". Highlighting the fact they are gay as a belittling factor.

And that's exactly how the OP used it when first referring to the girl who hit his friend. He was dancing, looking for his hole and danced with a "fat bitch". And that's what leaves open the interpretation that it was sexist.

Now I'd agree most other references to her as a fat bitch were merely insulting her character on the ground she acted like an unpleasant person. But again I'd reiterate given the initial usage I dont find it that hard to see where the confusion came from.

We must have different understandings of the word so. I don't really consider the use of the word bitch to be any more sexist than the use of the word prick, certainly nothing like the comparable racist and homophobic slurs.

That said, I certainly don't encounter the word much. I never use it and I don't generally associate with the sort of people who use it. I'm probably younger than you are so I'm not fully aware of any historic connotations it may have.

Calhoun

Diego Simeone wrote: »

We must have different understandings of the word so. I don't really consider the use of the word bitch to be any more sexist than the use of the word prick, certainly nothing like the comparable racist and homophobic slurs.

That said, I certainly don't encounter the word much. I never use it and I don't generally associate with the sort of people who use it. I'm probably younger than you are so I'm not fully aware of any historic connotations it may have.

I dunno i must be really young also either that or we are just looking for things to be offended at .

Artful_Badger

Diego Simeone wrote: »

We must have different understandings of the word so. I don't really consider the use of the word bitch to be any more sexist than the use of the word prick, certainly nothing like the comparable racist and homophobic slurs.

That said, I certainly don't encounter the word much. I never use it and I don't generally associate with the sort of people who use it. I'm probably younger than you are so I'm not fully aware of any historic connotations it may have.

Well I'm not as old as time itself, I'm 30. But I've heard women called bitches throughout my life and not only because they were being unpleasant. Sometimes just simply a term used to degrade or speak down to woman. If a woman has done nothing to warrant being called unpleasant then calling her a bitch is more than likely being used in a derogatory fashion and unlikely to mean unpleasant. "Hot bitch", "thick bitch", "fat bitch" etc. In the case of the OP of that thread he calls the girl a "fat bitch" while describing dancing with her before she did anything to him. In that situation how could it mean she was a horrible unpleasant person ?

The problem with it is unlike other clearly derogatory words its mostly used as just an insult. So depending on the context it can mean different things. But I'm surprised so many seem oblivious to the fact its a derogatory term for a woman tbh whatever about thinking it wasn't used as such in the thread. Just one of those things I'd assume was common knowledge.

NordieSteve

Why are women like a protected species on boards? I don't get what is harmful about people discussing something regarding a person. Genders should not dictate discussion and censoring it is disgusting. The amount of protesting at governments censoring the internet and yet we have a merry band of wannabe censors in this little forum.

Artful_Badger

Calhoun wrote: »

I dunno i must be really young also either that or we are just looking for things to be offended at .

I'm not looking for anything to be offended by I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Bitch when used in the right context in relation to women can be a derogatory term. Like I said I thought this was common knowledge.

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Well I'm not as old as time itself, I'm 30. But I've heard women called bitches throughout my life and not only because they were being unpleasant. Sometimes just simply a term used to degrade or speak down to woman. If a woman has done nothing to warrant being called unpleasant then calling her a bitch is more than likely being used in a derogatory fashion and unlikely to mean unpleasant. "Hot bitch", "thick bitch", "fat bitch" etc. In the case of the OP of that thread he calls the girl a "fat bitch" while describing dancing with her before she did anything to him. In that situation how could it mean she was a horrible unpleasant person ?

The problem with it is unlike other clearly derogatory words its mostly used as just an insult. So depending on the context it can mean different things. But I'm surprised so many seem oblivious to the fact its a derogatory term for a woman tbh whatever about thinking it wasn't used as such in the thread. Just one of those things I'd assume was common knowledge.

The same could be said about the word wanker, it's used mostly as an insult towards men but if a woman said in a thread "i slapped the wanker in the face" i wouldn't be screaming sexism.

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The problem with it is unlike other clearly derogatory words its mostly used as just an insult. So depending on the context it can mean different things. But I'm surprised so many seem oblivious to the fact its a derogatory term for a woman tbh whatever about thinking it wasn't used as such in the thread. Just one of those things I'd assume was common knowledge.

Feigning ignorance Badger can be quite useful when a person doesn't feel like they should have to consider how they can be interpreted by their audience... or is that arrogance?

Perhaps they think that the more offensive they are, the more attention they'll get, for however long that lasts. Again a very immature attitude, and you have to wonder have they ever considered making a positive contribution to the forum that would leave a longer lasting impression, rather than spewing crap and then getting banned from their own thread.

Legs.Eleven

I don't know what to make of that thread. I made a heat-of-the-moment, and in hindsight, stupid dig at some posters on that thread and (justifiably) got infracted for it but many of the comments on that thread crossed the line imo. The topic itself I have no problem with necessarily (although I wince when I read anyone condoning violence full stop irrespective of gender) or even the opinions expressed that they would hit someone regardless of gender but some of the language bandied about turns my stomach.


Tbh, I'm fairly sensitive to sexism on AH as I've been one of the few female posters to have posted in there consistently for so long (since 2007), so I've seen it all and I've noticed it's making a bit of reappearance again, although fair play to the mods as they've really cracked down on it, so I am positive it'll never be like it was. Still, perhaps I'm overly sensitive to it because it's understandably unpleasant to post somewhere where sexist language is used when you're already in the minority. I like posting in there but I really do not want it to go back to how it was.

I suppose the fact that I've seen so many threads started that start out as a discussion on obesity and become a free-for-all to take horrible digs at bigger women specifically every single time that I thought I was seeing more of it with the added bonus of condoning violence (sorry, "Self defence" :rolleyes:).

The majority of sexism over the years on Boards has been directed at women and I can understand why many posters are wary of it making a reappearance, so I can understand the apparent sensitiveness to it. I can't figure out if the posters are discussing self-defence or expressing their desire to punch fat women because let's face it, fat women are not treated very kindly in there whenever the topic arises. Would the same comments be made if she was attractive and slim? Probably not.

However, if the mods have handed out infractions and bans on that thread, no worries and fair play. I haven't seen the cards on the posts I thought would be infracted but I suppose that's just how it works; I trust your judgement going on how you did a good job cleaning up that place over the last few years. The thread still makes me deeply uncomfortable though all the same.

Calhoun

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not looking for anything to be offended by I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Bitch when used in the right context in relation to women can be a derogatory term. Like I said I thought this was common knowledge.

Doesn't seem to be the case we are running the gambit between arguments against violence and now sexism.

Don't get me wrong I don't agree with the op nor do I believe in using violence myself but I disagree with this offence by proxy being used to shut down discussion

Artful_Badger

Calhoun wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be the case we are running the gambit between arguments against violence and now sexism.

Don't get me wrong I don't agree with the op nor do I believe in using violence myself but I disagree with this offence by proxy being used to shut down discussion

This is the last time I explain this to you. I'm just discussing what's coming up here and all I have argued is that the OP's argument wasn't baseless and that there was grounds for confusion about the usage of the term "fat bitch", attempted to discuss an interesting point in relation to the advocating of violence and originally simply expressed my own opinion that the thread wasnt worth the effort the mods eventually had to put into it.

Again I'll ask you to show me one post where I argue for the discussion to be shut down. There are none because its not what I want, so please give it a rest.

Calhoun

Artful_Badger wrote: »

This is the last time I explain this to you. I'm just discussing what's coming up here and all I have argued is that the OP's argument wasn't baseless and that there was grounds for confusion about the usage of the term "fat bitch", attempted to discuss an interesting point in relation to the advocating of violence and originally simply expressed my own opinion that the thread wasnt worth the effort the mods eventually had to put into it.

Again I'll ask you to show me one post where I argue for the discussion to be shut down. There are none because its not what I want, so please give it a rest.

I don't have to show you anything , the mods have provided feedback on why the thread stayed open yet we are still taking about it so it's clear that people don't like the discussion and the natural conclusion to that is the discussion is closed down.

Artful_Badger

*bangs head against wall*

Calhoun

I don't know what to tell you, your final post on the thread itself and your posting style on here leads me to believe that you are being disingenuous about your intentions.

If this is not the case then fine but what does it matter you dont answer to me nor do i suspect you too but even though i would be closer to your point of view on the topics at hand, i would rather see posts like this kept open and the idiots shown for who they are and get banned, than shut down any discussion on the topic at all.

Czarcasm

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't have to show you anything , the mods have provided feedback on why the thread stayed open yet we are still taking about it so it's clear that people don't like the discussion and the natural conclusion to that is the discussion is closed down.

That would be only ONE conclusion drawn, the other conclusion when people raise objections to certain posts that display a certain attitude on a thread is that the thread be looked at and the tone of the thread adjusted to weed out the nonsense that makes no effective contribution to the subject being discussed. That way people who want to discuss the issue can discuss it, and those posters who just want attention will just have to go somewhere else to get it.

Another conclusion is that those posters would think to adjust their posting style if they want their opinions to be taken seriously. How likely that is to happen though is anyone's guess.

Artful_Badger

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't know what to tell you, your final post on the thread itself and your posting style on here leads me to believe that you are being disingenuous about your intentions.

If this is not the case then fine but what does it matter you dont answer to me nor do i suspect you too but even though i would be closer to your point of view on the topics at hand, i would rather see posts like this kept open and the idiots shown for who they are and get banned, than shut down any discussion on the topic at all.

For someone spouting on about people wanting discussion closed down you're making some effort to derail this thread by ignoring posts, inferring motives and criticising others for attempting to discuss the topic.

Calhoun

Artful_Badger wrote: »

For someone spouting on about people wanting discussion closed down you're making some effort to derail this thread by ignoring posts, inferring motives and criticising others for attempting to discuss the topic.

I was only responding to you as you quoted me, i was also responding to some of the posts that have come up on thread. Just because you don't like that something exists doesn't mean you have free reign to comment on it without challenge. If you don't want to see threads like the one in AH closed what do you want to have happen to them?

Calhoun

Czarcasm wrote: »

That would be only ONE conclusion drawn, the other conclusion when people raise objections to certain posts that display a certain attitude on a thread is that the thread be looked at and the tone of the thread adjusted to weed out the nonsense that makes no effective contribution to the subject being discussed. That way people who want to discuss the issue can discuss it, and those posters who just want attention will just have to go somewhere else to get it.

Another conclusion is that those posters would think to adjust their posting style if they want their opinions to be taken seriously. How likely that is to happen though is anyone's guess.

This post does make allot of sense, i do agree with you the AH thread really went sour because of AH attention seeking antics. The first couple of posts were very inflammatory and they really did undermine a very serious discussion, my props to the mod team they did a brilliant job with it.

I agree with you folk wont change their posting style, i think though that is the nature of AH and if i am being honest its this is why i have been posting here. How do you change the nature of AH posting style without wrecking what AH is and what guidelines do you set in place for posters.

Wibbs

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Bitch is a derogatory term for a woman and it carries a lot more weight than calling a man a fat cúnt which is simply an insult.

According to you. Both are equal insults to an individual. I don't see how gender comes into it, unless we're aiming for gender offence/passive victim quotas here. Because as we all know women feel these jibes more strongly. The poor delicate dears. They must be protected more than men, cos men can take it you know. *sarcasm* Yea right. Or in the parlance of the interweb GTFO. With that kinda thinking welcome to the 1950's. This kinda guff wouldn't even register with the women I know.

I don't understand how this is disputable, calling a woman who's done nothing to you (which the woman hadn't to the OP at that point in the story, he even changed it to "wide bodied lady" after getting carded which further highlights how he was using it) a bitch is derogatory.

Dickish though it was he was still talking about an individual, not a gender. I do find it amusing that many among the right on types while rightfully believing someone's gender doesn't define them as an individual, then go and equate an insult directed at one person an attack and a reflection on an entire gender. LOL's and irony in one mindset, the gift that keeps on giving.

Now I can perfectly see your point that it was directed at an individual and subsequently used to describe the woman because of what she did. But its not exactly unfathomable I dont think to see where people took issue given the OP's first usage of the term.

I do. Again offence by proxy springs...

"skinny bitch" imo may have resulted in a similar view who knows, maybe the "fat" part added some weight (excuse the pun) to the issue. Fat/skinny bastard in relation to a man wouldn't have because bastard doesn't carry the same connotations as bitch when used to refer to a woman.

Riiiight. So men have less cause to be offended when denigrated as a fat and parentless individual or group(as the daft logic of some here would attempt)? I think the interweb meme of GTFO with that comes in here. I do so love the logic of this kinda thinking.

As I said its probably a bit much than the thread was ever worth but I dont think its completely bereft of an argument.

Argument maybe, debate not so much, as any reasoned debate would expose the holes pretty quickly.

EDIT. I see closed account so... Frustration/strop/Genuine reason[delete as applicable].

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Ignoring skanger as it seems to be what most people are arguing about despite "fat bitch" being the main issue. Bitch is a derogatory term for a woman and it carries a lot more weight than calling a man a fat cúnt which is simply an insult. I don't understand how this is disputable, calling a woman who's done nothing to you (which the woman hadn't to the OP at that point in the story, he even changed it to "wide bodied lady" after getting carded which further highlights how he was using it) a bitch is derogatory.

Here is the OP and as we know he changed "fat bitch" to wide bodied.

So I was out last night with the lads, few pints and shots were had and then I went straight for the dancefloor looking to settle for my score for the night. As I was going through different women on the floor, I danced with them for a bit to see if they were interested. If not, I'd move on to the next one. At one stage, there was a "wide-bodied lady" (should say well-built tall girl..) and I didn't want to look like an arsehole, ignoring her so I danced with her for a bit but moved on as I wasn't interested.

Next I met my friend so I started chatting up with her until suddenly, I was pushed aside by this lady I danced before and she floored my friend. Gave my friend a bloody nose so I reacted instantly and decked her in the face. When she fell, she looked like the twin towers falling. I never met this idiot before and I was lost at why did she punch my friend for no reason. Jealousy?


Was that punch I threw justified or did I step over the line?

Now lets change it around a bit

So I was out last night with the girls, few pints and shots were had and then I went straight for the dancefloor looking to settle for my score for the night. As I was going through different lads on the floor, I danced with them for a bit to see if they were interested. If not, I'd move on to the next one. At one stage, there was a fat wanker (should say well-built tall lad) and I didn't want to look like an arsehole, ignoring him so I danced with him for a bit but moved on as I wasn't interested.

Next I met my friend so I started chatting up with him until suddenly, I was pushed aside by this lad I danced before and he floored my friend. Gave my friend a bloody nose so I reacted instantly and decked him in the face. When he fell, he looked like the twin towers falling. I never met this idiot before and I was lost at why did he punch my friend for no reason. Jealousy?


Was that punch I threw justified or did I step over the line?

I wonder if my edited version was the real OP how many people would have said punch was unjustified? How many would be screaming sexism over the term fat wanker? And how many would be saying a woman should NEVER hit a man under any circumstances?

username123

bumper234 wrote: »

Here is the OP and as we know he changed "fat bitch" to wide bodied.



Now lets change it around a bit



I wonder if my edited version was the real OP how many people would have said punch was unjustified? How many would be screaming sexism over the term fat wanker? And how many would be saying a woman should NEVER hit a man under any circumstances?

It was actually posts following the OP that I was more concerned about. While I felt the tone and language in the OP was offensive and sexist, it was clearly used to provoke a reaction, but what followed was a free for all. I didn't even quote the OP in my own OP here. But references like "when a ho" and "dirty headed scangers" started being used to generally refer to women, plus "fat bitch" continued to be thrown around.

And yes, fat wanker is a sexist term because it's gender specific, but wanker refers to a male who masturbates, which all men do, so it doesn't carry the same level of insult as bitch which is a comparison to a female dog, calling someone a bitch is to imply they are only as good as a female dog, specifically because it's female. Female dogs are considered less valuable than male dogs in terms of breeding, so the term bitch carries the same connotation, females are worth less than males. Wanker doesn't have the same comparison. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a sexist derogatory term for men that is an equivalent for bitch. Certainly there are terms that are crude words for male genitalia, but they do not imply by their use that males are worth less than females.

However, the above is just an interesting sideline about the meaning of words. The example you used is also sexist. I don't think anyone was screaming sexism, but it was certainly raised as an issue. Would the same happen over the term "fat wanker"? I don't know, but it's just as valid.