Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Discussion on sexism

13468914

Comments



  • Surely you've seen what the powers that be have let CA/IMHO become? I think it's admirable but incredibly unrealistic that you think they'll do anything differently now.

    I think everyone can agree that it is a “necessary evil”. Can you imagine the rest of the site if it wasn’t there?

    As others have stated, it would unrealistic to expect these people to “change” but, for me, containing them in one place is the only “workable” solution.

    Maybe more could be done to stop these “types” taking root in other, more normal, forums?

    He/him/his

    “When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

    #bekind





  • anewme wrote: »
    But you've posters saying what if it's TRUE?

    Are they neanderthal too ?

    One poster. And I’d be fairly certain they were speaking metaphorically.

    Do you think that any comment made in a non complimentary way about two specific women, or even any one specific woman is sexist? Leaving aside the comment that you’ve quoted about 6 times here, a different comment. Any non complimentary comment at all. Let’s say there was a woman who was incompetent at her job, and someone comments on it. Is that sexist?




  • anewme wrote: »
    No, you've people saying it was ok because of the people involved. Strawberry Milkshake for example condones all insults. They dont think its insulting. They are fine with it.

    And you've posters saying what if it's TRUE?

    Are they neanderthal too ?

    Who has said it was OK? Where has SM condoned the insults? You are making things up.




  • You keep on going back and editing your posts, making it look like I’m indulging in selective editing. I’d appreciate it if you stopped that.




  • You keep on going back and editing your posts, making it look like I’m indulging in selective editing. I’d appreciate it if you stopped that.

    I edit posts about 2 minutes after I post them.

    It's because I've bad eyesight.

    I want to ensure my posts reflect what I want to say.

    So, you will have to accept that or not.


  • Advertisement


  • They cannot be educated. People have different opinions. It's not up to anyone on a message board to educate anyone on a board.

    The comments are reported and the mods have dealt with it.

    Unless you ban men from the internet there are going to be sexist comments.

    Not that's blatant sexism right there

    You are painting all men as the same, not one or two but all




  • anewme wrote: »
    This thread is for feedback.

    There has been a denial that there is a problem.

    Posts such as these indicate there is.

    You haven’t answered my question. What do you think should be done, for example, to Strawberry Milkshake in the above quoted post.




  • anewme wrote: »
    I edit posts about 2 minutes after I post them.

    It's because I've bad eyesight.

    I want to ensure my posts reflect what I want to say.

    So, you will have to accept that or not.

    Ok. But if you could add in an edit tag or something I’d appreciate it. I hate selective quoting, it’s a real bugbear of mine. As it can take an entire post out of context.

    Anyway, back to the thread....

    Earlier on I referred to an obvious case of sexism where I used work. Or common sense.

    What would your viewpoint be in that? Because it was definitely a generalisation.




  • 99nsr125 wrote: »
    Not that's blatant sexism right there

    You are painting all men as the same, not one or two but all

    They aren't though. The insinuation is that some men post sexist comments, but you can't neccesarilly know which ones. So only a blanket ban would stop it.

    It's sexist in that it assumes only men do this. But JmcJ isn't sexist and is quite a fair poster, so likely posted in haste.




  • 99nsr125 wrote: »
    Not that's blatant sexism right there

    You are painting all men as the same, not one or two but all

    Apologies. I don't mean to say all men are sexist. It's only some men.

    But you just don't know in advance which ones. So as long as you have men on the internet some of them will be sexist.


  • Advertisement


  • Apologies. I don't mean to say all men are sexist. It's only some men.

    But you just don't know in advance which ones. So as long as you have men on the internet some of them will be sexist.

    And women too. Both genders can be sexist.

    Actually that should be all genders in today’s world.




  • And women too. Both genders can be sexist.

    Actually that should be all genders in today’s world.

    Of course. Women can be sexist against men.




  • anewme wrote: »
    How could this possibly be true?

    You are proving my point here about condoning hate.

    F***ing gravel donkeys need new faces and bodies never mind tits.the state of them.fannies like a punched lasagne prob

    Because somebody might be promiscuous
    That's how it could be true.

    No I'm proving a point about you making assumptions where no material fact is present, without material fact any statement is as likely to be true as not.


    Oh ffs

    Is this some sort of ruse to post the donkey reference over and over again.

    Do you enjoy doing it, like is it the chance you needed to be crass about the two women because there's some sort of inner jealousy about their trip to Dubai or breast enlargement.




  • One poster. And I’d be fairly certain they were speaking metaphorically.

    Do you think that any comment made in a non complimentary way about two specific women, or even any one specific woman is sexist? Leaving aside the comment that you’ve quoted about 6 times here, a different comment. Any non complimentary comment at all. Let’s say there was a woman who was incompetent at her job, and someone comments on it. Is that sexist?

    If people are incompetent at their jobs that’s people being incompetent at their jobs.

    If you believe that incompetence is because they are women, that is sexist.




  • anewme wrote: »
    If people are incompetent at their jobs that’s people being incompetent at their jobs.

    If you believe that incompetence is because they are women, that is sexist.

    Fair enough. So one comment is about a single person, and is not a generalisation about their gender, therefore it’s not sexist.

    If the comment was in reference to her being a woman and the incompetence stems from their gender, then it is a generalisation then it’s sexist.

    For what it’s worth, I agree.

    What about the alarm call issue I referred to? Is that sexist against women? Or men?




  • 99nsr125 wrote: »
    Because somebody might be promiscuous

    Is this some sort of ruse to post the donkey reference over and over again.

    Do you enjoy doing it, like is it the chance you needed to be crass about the two women because there's some sort of inner jealousy about their trip to Dubai or breast enlargement.

    This is the type of view that I believe is dangerous.

    Poster condoned nasty post and now accuses the person highlighting it.

    I was not crass about the women.

    Highlighting it is not crass.

    Making the post or condoning it is.




  • Apologies. I don't mean to say all men are sexist. It's only some men.

    But you just don't know in advance which ones. So as long as you have men on the internet some of them will be sexist.

    As long as there are people let alone the internet there will be quickly posted comments. We will all make them.
    I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram but I will highlight something that I think needs addition

    Your post was good to highlight a broad generalization easily spoken but rarely meant.




  • anewme wrote: »
    This is the type of view that I believe is dangerous.

    Poster condoned nasty post and now accuses the person highlighting it.

    I was not crass about the women.

    Highlighting it is not crass.

    Making the post or condoning it is.

    What do you think should be done about this "dangerous" post




  • anewme wrote: »
    This is the type of view that I believe is dangerous.

    Poster condoned nasty post and now accuses the person highlighting it.

    I was not crass about the women.

    Highlighting it is not crass.

    Making the post or condoning it is.

    I never condoned it or condemned it but it doesn't mean the descriptors are ones I would use, however exclusion of language based on semantics only serves to shut down debate

    You are continually posting it
    That means you are proliferating the poor commentary

    Even the people defending the ability to debate with such descriptors are not quoting it.


    If there was a news report on television of a racist incident where someone was called a Nïgger and the report over and over again used Nïgger in the commentary that lends legitimacy to calling someone a Nïgger.

    That's exactly what you're doing, the persistence repeating of the comments is tacit approval of them from you.




  • 99nsr125 wrote: »
    I never condoned it or condemned it but it doesn't mean the descriptors are ones I would use, however exclusion of language based on semantics only serves to shut down debate

    You are continually posting it
    That means you are proliferating the poor commentary

    Even the people defending the ability to debate with such descriptors are not quoting it.


    If there was a news report on television of a racist incident where someone was called a Nïgger and the report over and over again used Nïgger in the commentary that lends legitimacy to calling someone a Nïgger.

    That's exactly what you're doing, the persistence repeating of the comments is tacit approval of them from you.

    You did condone it.

    You asked but what if it is ttrue.

    It was such a despicable comment that there is no way it could possibly be true.

    Why would you even think it ok to ask that question?

    From your posts it’s evident you don’t have respect for women.


  • Advertisement


  • anewme wrote: »
    You did condone it.

    You asked but what if it is ttrue.

    It was such a despicable comment that there is no way it could possibly be true.

    Why would you even think it ok to ask that question?

    From your posts it’s evident you don’t have respect for women.

    What do you think should be done about someone asking if it was true?




  • anewme wrote: »
    You did condone it.

    You asked but what if it is ttrue.

    It was such a despicable comment that there is no way it could possibly be true.

    Why would you even think it ok to ask that question?

    From your posts it’s evident you don’t have respect for women.

    Other posters have suggested you em . .don't quite accurately represent comments and quotes, I'll simply say
    Go back and read

    What if it were true was a comment I made about promiscuity which we have no way of knowing one way or the other, so it could either be true or not.

    It's important to question, it eliminates inaccuracies and advances us

    A despicable comment does not reduce it's propensity to be factual or not.

    On the contrary, women are the heart of society but it doesn't mean the standards applied should be different, that is inherently sexist and hurts us all




  • How is any of this feedback?




  • How is any of this feedback?

    Admin: I would agree with the above sentiment. One thing the last 170 or so posts prove though is that perceptions certainly differ with respect to where the lines are with respect to what constitutes many of the -ism's prevalent on the site, which by definition makes it a complex area to police.

    That being said, the purpose of feedback is to, well, give feedback to the community managers and admin, not the place for posters to debate back and forth. If we can limit posts to actual feedback, I would appreciate it.




  • Tokyo wrote: »
    Admin: I would agree with the above sentiment. One thing the last 170 or so posts prove though is that perceptions certainly differ with respect to where the lines are with respect to what constitutes many of the -ism's prevalent on the site, which by definition makes it a complex area to police.

    That being said, the purpose of feedback is to, well, give feedback to the community managers and admin, not the place for posters to debate back and forth. If we can limit posts to actual feedback, I would appreciate it.

    Duly noted, it has gotten personal rather than general.

    It's still important to note, and relevant, that a particular demographic will view things differently.

    It's also important to note that a huge amount of leeway has been allowed here.




  • Tokyo wrote: »
    Admin: I would agree with the above sentiment. One thing the last 170 or so posts prove though is that perceptions certainly differ with respect to where the lines are with respect to what constitutes many of the -ism's prevalent on the site, which by definition makes it a complex area to police.

    That being said, the purpose of feedback is to, well, give feedback to the community managers and admin, not the place for posters to debate back and forth. If we can limit posts to actual feedback, I would appreciate it.

    I think it is quite evident, on this thread at least, that most are happy with the forum and don't want to see a change in moderation whether that be it become more stringent or less stringent.
    Again, I will state it certainly appears to be a tiny minority of posters who have a problem, and I would urge mods not to give in to the will of the minority, regardless of how persistent they are.




  • I think it is quite evident, on this thread at least, that most are happy with the forum and don't want to see a change in moderation whether that be it become more stringent or less stringent.
    Again, I will state it certainly appears to be a tiny minority of posters who have a problem, and I would urge mods not to give in to the will of the minority, regardless of how persistent they are.

    Why, because you shouted the loudest?

    Normalised , constant uncommented sexism is the rule and you like it that way. You’ve piled on, bullied, shouted down and demanded that the status quo remains.

    Here’s the status quo though.

    No comment is ever made by mods when people read that string of crap about “slapped tits” etc and object to it. If some terribly oversensitive difficult woman reports it, then reluctantly, it gets deleted, completely silently.


    Anyone that raises a discussion on the volume of it is ranting.

    Any time they do so is most inconvenient.


    That’s the situation now, and that’s what a handful of posters apparently want to remain.


    No guidelines, no policy, no education needed. No improvement possible, just shrug and ignore. Maybe those difficult oversensitive crazy (ugly too and in need of a boob job) vocal women will just go away.




  • pwurple wrote: »
    Here’s the status quo though.

    No comment is ever made by mods when people read that string of crap about “slapped tits” etc and object to it. If some terribly oversensitive difficult woman reports it, then reluctantly, it gets deleted, completely silently.

    That’s the situation now, and that’s what a handful of posters apparently want to remain.

    Aside from the charged language, and the direct accusation to one poster in particular of being a bully, what basis have you got that things are “reluctantly deleted/actioned” by moderators.




  • Omackeral wrote: »
    Aside from the charged language, and the direct accusation to one poster in particular of being a bully, what basis have you got that things are “reluctantly deleted/actioned” by moderators.

    My own eyes. This is my typical experience.

    I report posts with that kind of language when I see then. They typically get deleted. There is never a comment on it.

    If I report a slew of them, I sometimes pm the mod and ask could they put up a comment so I don’t have to keep reporting. They usually don’t, and just say keep reporting.


    Look at it this way... One of your children is hitting an other child with a stick. The injured child comes running to you. You bandage up the cut , but don’t take the stick off the other child or tell them not to do it again. What do you think continues to happen?


  • Advertisement


  • sydthebeat wrote: »
    I think the boards wide policy of moderators deleting posts without notification or indication is a terrible action for this whole forum.

    Posters who have had posts removed are not notified that their posts are removed (I've experienced this myself).
    Therefore I don't see the point, as the posters behaviour wont change...

    Also, posts which are replies to "fresh air" look off Topic and ridiculous.

    Who came up with this as an acceptable moderation action???

    It's obviously not a full thought through policy
    Omackeral wrote: »
    Aside from the charged language, and the direct accusation to one poster in particular of being a bully, what basis have you got that things are “reluctantly deleted/actioned” by moderators.

    This post was very early in in the thread. I've seen it happen too.

    Deleting the posts when the poster does not know is not going to improve quality.

    So, could the mods leave the post either as is or with the bits snipped out as sometimes happens. Then at least there is some consistency and transparency.

    Given that some people here dont believe there is a qualitative issue as when posts are deleted, it looks like someone else is speaking into thin air.

    In the interests of transparency, this would be a good step to improve quality.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement