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

Dades

username123 wrote: »

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.

Talk about trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I'm not sure even you believe what you're saying. It seems the only way to perceive sexism in the first post is to overthink it to the point of ridiculousness.

username123

Dades wrote: »

Talk about trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I'm not sure even you believe what you're saying. It seems the only way to perceive sexism in the first post is to overthink it to the point of ridiculousness.

Well you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine. I don't think it's ok to go round referring to women as bitches, ho's, scangers or any other derogatory term. Same way I don't think racist or homophobic terms are ok.

P. Breathnach

username123 wrote: »

... I don't think it's ok to go round referring to women as bitches, ho's, scangers or any other derogatory term....

But it might be okay to refer to one particular woman in such terms: then the debate can be about whether she merits the description, not about how women in general are represented.

You're picking the wrong ground on which to make a stand. That actually matters, because picking bad fights makes it more difficult for people to fight the good fight.

username123

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it might be okay to refer to one particular woman in such terms: then the debate can be about whether she merits the description, not about how women in general are represented.

You're picking the wrong ground on which to make a stand. That actually matters, because picking bad fights makes it more difficult for people to fight the good fight.

I dont think it is ok to refer to one particular woman using those terms though, in the same way that I dont think it would be ok to refer to Barack Obama using a racial slur and then try to argue that because I wasnt referring to ALL black people that the term wasnt meant to be racist. We shouldnt tolerate racist terms and we shouldnt tolerate sexist terms.

If there was no problem with the terms used in the original OP then why was it rewritten, toned down, and infractions handed out?

Your assessment of what constitutes a good or bad fight is in error on this one.

bumper234

username123 wrote: »

I dont think it is ok to refer to one particular woman using those terms though, in the same way that I dont think it would be ok to refer to Barack Obama using a racial slur and then try to argue that because I wasnt referring to ALL black people that the term wasnt meant to be racist. We shouldnt tolerate racist terms and we shouldnt tolerate sexist terms.

If there was no problem with the terms used in the original OP then why was it rewritten, toned down, and infractions handed out?

Your assessment of what constitutes a good or bad fight is in error on this one.

Do you think she shouldn't be referred to as a fat bitch because it's sexist though? Yes it's not a nice term to use to describe the woman but it's no more sexist than some one describing a doorman as a ****ing gorrilla, a policeman as a ****ing pig or a random man as a stupid wanker.

username123

bumper234 wrote: »

Do you think she shouldn't be referred to as a fat bitch because it's sexist though? Yes it's not a nice term to use to describe the woman but it's no more sexist than some one describing a doorman as a ****ing gorrilla, a policeman as a ****ing pig or a random man as a stupid wanker.

Bumper I can only recommend to you that you read back over this thread where it's been explained more than once why the term is sexist. I'm not going over it again, if it's not clear after the variety of posts explaining it here, it never will be.

bumper234

username123 wrote: »

Bumper I can only recommend to you that you read back over this thread where it's been explained more than once why the term is sexist. I'm not going over it again, if it's not clear after the variety of posts explaining it here, it never will be.

You mean like this one where you claim

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. 

Claiming something is sexist is one thing but grasping at weak straws as you did above to try to justify your hand wringing is just....well.....sad.

username123

bumper234 wrote: »

You mean like this one where you claim



Claiming something is sexist is one thing but grasping at weak straws as you did above to try to justify your hand wringing is just....well.....sad.

That's grand bumper, it's clear you don't get it, difficult concepts are not for everyone.

Sierra 117

You do your argument no favours by resorting to insults, username.

username123

Sierra 117 wrote: »

You do your argument no favours by resorting to insults, username.

Nor does bumper by dismissing validly raised concerns as "screaming sexism" or "hand wringing". However it appears it's ok for some to get personal eh?

Sierra 117

So bumper not regarding your concerns as valid warrants insulting his intelligence?

bumper234

username123 wrote: »

That's grand bumper, it's clear you don't get it, difficult concepts are not for everyone.

What don't i get? You're claiming the words "fat bitch" is sexist and degrading to ALL women when it's clearly (to the majority of people) that it's not. Is pig, gorilla or wanker sexist and degrading to ALL MEN?

bumper234

username123 wrote: »

Nor does bumper by dismissing validly raised concerns as "screaming sexism" or "hand wringing". However it appears it's ok for some to get personal eh?

Where did i "get personal"?

username123

bumper234 wrote: »

Where did i "get personal"?

When you used the terms "screaming sexism" (to infer hysteria when in fact all that was happening was a discussion) and when you called my raised concerns "hand wringing"(which you were using to undermine my opinions).

Both of those posts were just disrespectful. You can make your point without trying to undermine the other persons by using terms like that.

There's little point in this, you cannot understand why the terms used were sexist despite repeated explanations. I can't see why you don't get it, and you resorted to dismissive rude terms towards me resulting in me dismissing your intelligence, so it's going nowhere.

Overheal

username123 wrote: »

When you used the terms "screaming sexism" (to infer hysteria when in fact all that was happening was a discussion) and when you called my raised concerns "hand wringing"(which you were using to undermine my opinions).

Both of those posts were just disrespectful. You can make your point without trying to undermine the other persons by using terms like that.

There's little point in this, you cannot understand why the terms used were sexist despite repeated explanations. I can't see why you don't get it, and you resorted to dismissive rude terms towards me resulting in me dismissing your intelligence, so it's going nowhere.

Stop. It was criticism, ("grasping at weak straws as you did above to try to justify your hand wringing is just....well.....sad.") not personal abuse.

bumper234

username123 wrote: »

When you used the terms "screaming sexism" (to infer hysteria when in fact all that was happening was a discussion) and when you called my raised concerns "hand wringing"(which you were using to undermine my opinions).

Both of those posts were just disrespectful. You can make your point without trying to undermine the other persons by using terms like that.

There's little point in this, you cannot understand why the terms used were sexist despite repeated explanations. I can't see why you don't get it, and you resorted to dismissive rude terms towards me resulting in me dismissing your intelligence, so it's going nowhere.

I guess some people are so sensitive they will see insults and sexist remarks everywhere, even when there are none. :rolleyes:

Nodin

username123 wrote: »

When you used the terms "screaming sexism" (to infer hysteria when in fact all that was happening was a discussion) and when you called my raised concerns "hand wringing"(which you were using to undermine my opinions).

Both of those posts were just disrespectful. You can make your point without trying to undermine the other persons by using terms like that.

There's little point in this, you cannot understand why the terms used were sexist despite repeated explanations. I can't see why you don't get it, and you resorted to dismissive rude terms towards me resulting in me dismissing your intelligence, so it's going nowhere.

The problem I have with that post is that it seeks to define what's 'respectuful' and 'disrespectful' in such away as to effectively silence anyone who disagrees, and define certain other words and terms in a similar fashion. There are certain message boards where this kind of thing is rampant, the result being a never ending cycle of back slapping, interspersed with the odd witch hunt.

padd b1975

bumper234 wrote: »

I guess some people are so sensitive they will see insults and sexist remarks everywhere, even when there are none. :rolleyes:

Nodin wrote: »

The problem I have with that post is that it seeks to define what's 'respectuful' and 'disrespectful' in such away as to effectively silence anyone who disagrees, and define certain other words and terms in a similar fashion. There are certain message boards where this kind of thing is rampant, the result being a never ending cycle of back slapping, interspersed with the odd witch hunt.

Indeed.

You only have to see how the old 'homophobia card' is trotted out around here ad nauseam.

bumper234

padd b1975 wrote: »

Indeed.

You only have to see how the old 'homophobia card' is trotted out around here ad nauseam.

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

crockholm

bumper234 wrote: »

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Must not feed

Are you calling me fat,you sexyist pig:mad:

:pac:

bumper234

crockholm wrote: »

Are you calling me fat,you sexyist pig:mad:

:pac:

Why thank you

strobe

Is there any love for the idea of a "During Hours" (I'm not good at names, ok) forum or something similar, where the more delicate souls on boards.ie could be ushered gently over to when the horrors of the bold words, mild impoliteness and risqué opinions in AH get a bit too much for them? A kind of retirement community or rest home for the terminally offended on boards?

bumper234

strobe wrote: »

Is there any love for the idea of a "During Hours" (I'm not good at names, ok) forum or something similar, where the more delicate souls on boards.ie could be ushered gently over to when the horrors of the bold words, mild impoliteness and risqué opinions in AH get a bit too much for them? A kind of retirement community or rest home for the terminally offended on boards?

Office hours!

They can all.stand around the water cooler tut tutting to each other about how the whippersnappers in AH are bold brats.

padd b1975

strobe wrote: »

Is there any love for the idea of a "During Hours" (I'm not good at names, ok) forum or something similar, where the more delicate souls on boards.ie could be ushered gently over to when the horrors of the bold words, mild impoliteness and risqué opinions in AH get a bit too much for them? A kind of retirement community or rest home for the terminally offended on boards?

There already is.




It's called The Ladies Lounge.:cool:

bumper234

bumper234 wrote: »

Office hours!

They can all.stand around the water cooler tut tutting to each other about how the whippersnappers in AH are bold brats.

I LOVE this idea.

Just to observe, like.

Renegade Mechanic

padd b1975 wrote: »

There already is.




It's called The Ladies Lounge.:cool:

Legs.Eleven

strobe wrote: »

Is there any love for the idea of a "During Hours" (I'm not good at names, ok) forum or something similar, where the more delicate souls on boards.ie could be ushered gently over to when the horrors of the bold words, mild impoliteness and risqué opinions in AH get a bit too much for them? A kind of retirement community or rest home for the terminally offended on boards?

Sounds like just my bag tbh.

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Indeed.

You only have to see how the old 'homophobia card' is trotted out around here ad nauseam.

Rather a different issue, for a different thread I'd imagine.

TeddyTedson

This has been one entertaining thread
Feedback is absolutely comical. I find it hard to believe some of these people on boards who claim to be offended by every last little thing.
The way I look at it is this is boards.ie yea and if you don't like you can, if you don't like well then you can... leave.

Czarcasm

TeddyTedson wrote: »

This has been one entertaining thread
Feedback is absolutely comical. I find it hard to believe some of these people on boards who claim to be offended by every last little thing.
The way I look at it is this is boards.ie yea and if you don't like you can, if you don't like well then you can... leave.

Hmm, not too long ago Teddy you started a thread in this very forum complaining that people were taking the mickey out of you for a thread you started and you wanted special treatment because you couldn't take it any more, so it's a bit rich for you of all people to be suggesting people leave Boards if they don't like something.
No doubt of course the thread that started all this will come back to haunt the OP of that thread too, such is the nature of the internet.