The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.Mod instruction in OP

jackofalltrades · 09-11-2014 03:45PM

volchitsa wrote: »

To be clear, since you seem to need it all spelled out for you

I see you're resorting to pettiness now.

Whereas male circumcision, the actual, exact same operation, does have medical indications. FGM has none.

Removal of the clitoral hood for medical reasons is the exact same as FGM Type 1(a).
FGM Type 1(a) is also very similiar to male circumcision.
Both are carried out for medical and social/religious reasons.
Therefore saying that male circumcision has medical applications and that FGM doesn't is still incorrect.

Bhopkov · 09-11-2014 03:52PM

volchitsa wrote: »

With respect, it's not. It's about low level aggressive language used to and about women, which denigrates them and creates a threatening atmosphere to women. Could you consider my comparison with racist language too?

If someone insults black people and also insults non black people then that is not racist.

Likewise if someone uses low level aggressive language about both men and women then it is not sexist. It someone only insults men it is set is to not insult women.

Turtwig · 09-11-2014 04:00PM

volchitsa wrote: »

With respect, it's not. It's about low level aggressive language used to and about women, which denigrates them and creates a threatening atmosphere to women. Could you consider my comparison with racist language too?

Maybe so but you're missing a very fundamental point. The language is used towards anything from a dog, to a doll to a toy, to a mother, to a gay person, to a father to a favourite comic book hero. It's juvenile, I hate it, but I'd never consider it evidence of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It's trash talk language meant solely to put the player off their game.

Don't get us wrong, a person could be a misogynist but what you consider evidence of being a misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc. actually isn't.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 04:07PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Oh, I'm getting it all right, including the point that "you're not getting it" is ofen a code for "you're thick".

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, I simply felt you were missing my point and focusing on a lesser point in my post. If that was the case, it was as much my fault for poorly worded posting as anyone else's.

This thread is about Boards seeming to be unwelcoming to some people, and I would prefer Boards to be welcoming to most people.

So would I, except those who believe that their sensibilities trump everyone's right to hav

You didn't "tell" anybody not to participate, and I didn't say you did. You suggested it, and you are renewing that suggestion.

I'm not, I'm simply saying "don't participate *IF* you can't hack the fact that some people in life are going to be muppets.

That's indiscriminate bollocks. Of course certain things should be banned. In some cases, the law requires it.

I'm aware the law requires it (although I don't agree with it except in cases of child porn) but to clarify, nothing should be banned purely because someone might find it offensive. If I read something on the internet that hurts my feelings it sucks, but that's how the internet works - my feelings don't trump everyone else's right to have a conversation just because I find the conversation unpleasant. I can go and read a different one.

Taking your position to its natural conclusion, almost no discussion could be allowed anywhere because there would probably be someone who would get pissed off reading it.

Anguish? No, not me. But it sometimes irritates me that interesting discussions get derailed by people acting the dick. And it disappoints me that some posters who might have useful contributions to make seem to be driven away by jerks.

It irritates me too, but as I said before, if people are "driven away" by jerks, in my view it's a case of learning to deal with the fact that not everyone will hold opinions you approve of and getting on with it. If your reaction to reading something annoying or rude on the internet is to be "driven away", you're taking it too seriously and need to get over yourself.

Now I know a lot of people will attack me for saying that, but that won't drive me away because it's the internet and I couldn't give a f*ck what some randomer thinks of my opinions.

shruikan2553 · 09-11-2014 04:09PM

volchitsa wrote: »

With respect, it's not. It's about low level aggressive language used to and about women, which denigrates them and creates a threatening atmosphere to women. Could you consider my comparison with racist language too?

It depends on the intent. Someone who is black being beaten or insulted is very different to the same thing happening because they are black. Someone tried to claim I was a misogynist for using the word womansplaining. Does that mean the person hates white males who are non Christian? No. People online can be racist, misogynistic or homophobic but they can also be equal opportunity assholes that don't care what you are and just want to piss you off.

Tarzana2 · 09-11-2014 04:09PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

FGM Type 1(a) is also very similiar to male circumcision.

Once again, FGM Type 1(a) is there as a classification but rarely, if ever, happens.

Its male equivalent, on the other hand, is the norm.

Big difference there.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 04:17PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It depends on the intent. Someone who is black being beaten or insulted is very different to the same thing happening because they are black. Someone tried to claim I was a misogynist for using the word womansplaining. Does that mean the person hates white males who are non Christian? No. People online can be racist, misogynistic or homophobic but they can also be equal opportunity assholes that don't care what you are and just want to piss you off.

This. Love the phrase "equal opportunity assholes".

mrkiscool2 · 09-11-2014 04:18PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Removal of the clitoral hood for medical reasons is the exact same as FGM Type 1(a).
FGM Type 1(a) is also very similiar to male circumcision.
Both are carried out for medical and social/religious reasons.
Therefore saying that male circumcision has medical applications and that FGM doesn't is still incorrect.

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Once again, FGM Type 1(a) is there as a classification but rarely, if ever, happens.

Its male equivalent, on the other hand, is the norm.

Big difference there.

Dear whatever deity you believe in, they are both as bad as each other. Yes, circumcision is (in a few cases) done for medical reasons but the majority are because some child's parents are following an ancient tradition handed down to them from thousands of years ago. FGM is the same! FGM is no doubt a worse procedure but it is not practised at all in the first world whereas circumcision is very common. Both are a violation of a person's consent and both can lead to health and sexual problems later in life. Let's leave it there yeah? Honestly!

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 04:23PM

Reading back through the thread and the various posts equating anti feminism with misogyny, can I just say I find it quite disturbing how easily the rejection of a political agenda is equated with hatred. The idea that "anti feminist" equals either "anti women" or "anti equality" is one of the most insidious fallacies regularly thrown around today and used to shame those with legitimate opposition to the ideology.

It's exactly like the American neo-con argument back in the early 2000s that "anti war = anti American".

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 04:32PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I see you're resorting to pettiness now.

Removal of the clitoral hood for medical reasons is the exact same as FGM Type 1(a).
FGM Type 1(a) is also very similiar to male circumcision.
Both are carried out for medical and social/religious reasons.
Therefore saying that male circumcision has medical applications and that FGM doesn't is still incorrect.

Oh come on, apart from cancer, which is acknowledged to justify mutilation of all sorts of organs, give me one medical indication for removal of the clitoral hood? There is no female equivalent to phimosis, which is the usual medical indication for circumcision.

And I would say it was justifiable irritation at your ridiculous comparison, but if you think it is petty to get irritated by someone who goes straight to vulvar cancer as the next step up from labial surgery for porn films, what can I say?

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 04:40PM

Bhopkov wrote: »

If someone insults black people and also insults non black people then that is not racist.

My question was though, if someone insults both black and non black people by calling them all n1ggers or wogs, is that person showing a racist mindset, in your view?

Personally I would suspect that he/she does have a racist approach to the world.
And I would make the same observation about someone who regularly uses female-oriented insults to insult males or females.

That's really all I was suggesting. I'm not saying it's anything like beating someone up or anything else, but it is about creating a general atmosphere where these things pass almost unnoticed. As we see here.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 04:59PM

Arguing that infant circumcision can be justified by the possible health benefits is like arguing that because breasts can become cancerous, it's ok for a parent to have both of their infant daughter's nipples removed at birth. Or that because one can transmit infection with one's hands, it's ok to cut off the hands of infants.

Does anyone have a coherent argument against this statement?

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 04:59PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Maybe so but you're missing a very fundamental point. The language is used towards anything from a dog, to a doll to a toy, to a mother, to a gay person, to a father to a favourite comic book hero. It's juvenile, I hate it, but I'd never consider it evidence of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It's trash talk language meant solely to put the player off their game.

Don't get us wrong, a person could be a misogynist but what you consider evidence of being a misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc. actually isn't.

I think you are the one missing the point : I wasn't the one who said the insults were misogynistic, that was the poster's wife.

So I asked whether as a white person they would feel entitled to dismiss a black person who said that the racist tenor of the insults used on a game made him/her uncomfortable - no matter that the insults were not only used against people identifying as black.

And no-one has yet answered that. Yet so many male posters seem to feel they can do the equivalent when it is a woman making that point.

Which I suspect is significant in itself.

The Strawman Argument · 09-11-2014 05:02PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The idea that "anti feminist" equals either "anti women" or "anti equality"

By quite a lot, the majority, of definitions it actually means exactly that!
OxfordDictionaries: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Merriam-Webster: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
The free dictionary: a heap of them here

Haven't read the thread so I've no clue what you're opposed to what you support but declaring yourself as "anti-feminist" is going to carry a whole different meaning to being opposed to certain ideologies from specific feminist groups for a lot of people.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 05:03PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So I asked whether as a white person they would feel entitled to dismiss a black person who said that the racist tenor of the insults used on a game made him/her uncomfortable - no matter that the insults were not only used against people identifying as black.

Personally I would. People taking anonymous online interactions seriously is in my view moronic, and I'd apply that to everyone regardless of demographic.

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:05PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Arguing that infant circumcision can be justified by the possible health benefits is like arguing that because breasts can become cancerous, it's ok for a parent to have both of their infant daughter's nipples removed at birth. Or that because one can transmit infection with one's hands, it's ok to cut off the hands of infants.

Does anyone have a coherent argument against this statement?

No,a I don't think anyone argues that, you are making stuff up now.

I said that little boys can develop a problem which requires circumcision. One of mine was very nearly in that case but the doctor did everything he could to avoid it (and he was Jewish, funnily enough!) and in the end it cleared up, but circumcision was the next step.

There is no equivalent problem which necessitates any form of FGM in little girls. I keep repeating this and you and others keep trying to pretend there is. There isn't.

mrkiscool2 · 09-11-2014 05:06PM

I think this thread has shown how easy it is to say an insult is something more than it is. If any of my female friends made a joke about me being unable to multi-task should I cry misandry? Or should I say they shouldn't make fun of the fact I have a disability that means I find doing the simplest task that requires hand-eye co-ordination tough? Or should I just laugh it off? Obviously, that's one example

But in order to be a misogynist, one would literally have to either hate or dislike everything about women. As in they couldn't be friends with a female if that female if they even thought that equality between sexes in any regard or area of society. It's really hard to be a misogynist. Are there any? Of course, but there are a lot fewer misogynists than people think. People mistake sexism for misogyny. You can be sexist and not hate females, just like you can be racist and not hate people of a different colour.

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:10PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I would. People taking anonymous online interactions seriously is in my view moronic, and I'd apply that to everyone regardless of demographic.

I'm sure some people do think that, and it's good that you are at least honest about it.
I disagree. While I think it's important not to assume guilt just on the basis of an accusation, I also believe that dismissing other people's experiences as exaggerated or impossible is exactly what allowed so many child abuse victims to be silenced for so long. So if someone with a different life experience from me feels he or she is being denigrated in some way, I would tend to think they may have some reason to recognize something I don't see because my experience has been different.

When it is only online interaction, I think that's all the more reason not to accept it. Why should someone put up with someone else's ignorance?

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:14PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I think this thread has shown how easy it is to say an insult is something more than it is. If any of my female friends made a joke about me being unable to multi-task should I cry misandry? Or should I say they shouldn't make fun of the fact I have a disability that means I find doing the simplest task that requires hand-eye co-ordination tough? Or should I just laugh it off? Obviously, that's one example

But in order to be a misogynist, one would literally have to either hate or dislike everything about women. As in they couldn't be friends with a female if that female if they even thought that equality between sexes in any regard or area of society. It's really hard to be a misogynist. Are there any? Of course, but there are a lot fewer misogynists than people think. People mistake sexism for misogyny. You can be sexist and not hate females, just like you can be racist and not hate people of a different colour.

I think that multi tasking thing is stupid, myself. I'm female and rubbish at multi tasking. My O/H is fine at doing several things at once. And yes, in some cases it can be used to put individual men down, in which case it is unpleasant as well.

But the traditional power roles in society mean that, as with black racism, which is just as unpleasant for the white person experiencing it as for a black person, the overall effects are generally a lot less severe. Not many men are refused jobs because they aren't women whereas women are still refused, if not because of being a woman any more, certainly because of the perceived risk of them not being available due to childcare issues etc - whether or not it is true for that woman.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 05:15PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No,a I don't think anyone argues that, you are making stuff up now.

Many, many do. "Circumcision might curb HIV transmission therefore it's ok" is an extremely common argument.

I said that little boys can develop a problem which requires circumcision. One of mine was very nearly in that case but the doctor did everything he could to avoid it (and he was Jewish, funnily enough!) and in the end it cleared up, but circumcision was the next step.

That's why I have consistently qualified my position by saying "all non medically essential surgical mutilation of infant genitalia should be illegal".

There is no equivalent problem which necessitates any form of FGM in little girls. I keep repeating this and you and others keep trying to pretend there is. There isn't.

How is that relevant? Nobody is arguing that medically essential circumcision shouldn't be allowed.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 05:16PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I think that multi tasking thing is stupid, myself. I'm female and rubbish at multi tasking. My O/H is fine at doing several things at once. And yes, in some cases it can be used to put individual men down, in which case it is unpleasant as well.

But the traditional power roles in society mean that, as with black racism, which is just as unpleasant for the white person experiencing it as for a black person, the overall effects are generally a lot less severe. Not many men are refused jobs because they aren't women whereas women are still refused, if not because of being a woman any more, certainly because of the perceived risk of them not being available due to childcare issues etc - whether or not it is true for that woman.

This is the (IMO moronic) SJW "privilege" argument at play, used to justify double standards.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 05:19PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm sure some people do think that, and it's good that you are at least honest about it.
I disagree. While I think it's important not to assume guilt just on the basis of an accusation, I also believe that dismissing other people's experiences as exaggerated or impossible is exactly what allowed so many child abuse victims to be silenced for so long. So if someone with a different life experience from me feels he or she is being denigrated in some way, I would tend to think they may have some reason to recognize something I don't see because my experience has been different.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making here? I never said people don't have a right to feel offended by something, I merely said that being offended does not entitle anyone to silence anyone else. Being offended on the internet is an occupational hazard of using the internet, and if "offense" is to be policed, it means the end of free expression.
In other words, even if something you write here pisses me off, your right to free expression is more important than my sensibilities.

When it is only online interaction, I think that's all the more reason not to accept it. Why should someone put up with someone else's ignorance?

Because ignorant people have the same right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion as everyone else.

mrkiscool2 · 09-11-2014 05:21PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I think that multi tasking thing is stupid, myself. I'm female and rubbish at multi tasking. My O/H is fine at doing several things at once. And yes, in some cases it can be used to put individual men down, in which case it is unpleasant as well.

But the traditional power roles in society mean that, as with black racism, which is just as unpleasant for the white person experiencing it as for a black person, the overall effects are generally a lot less severe. Not many men are refused jobs because they aren't women whereas women are still refused, if not because of being a woman any more, certainly because of the perceived risk of them not being available due to childcare issues etc - whether or not it is true for that woman.

I'm going to attack the post and not you here, just keep that in mind. That is honestly one of the worst posts I have seen. Black racism? Wut? It's racism by a black person. Also, any racism or sexism is just as severe for the person experiencing it. Being judged because of what you are rather than who you are can be massively upsetting for anyone.

As for women not getting jobs that's just nonsense. The best person always gets the job (there are equality laws in this country). The reason there aren't as many women in higher management is due to a multitude of reasons such as being unwilling to do as much over-time. As much as it sucks if a woman won't get a promotion because she has been off for 6 months on pregnancy leave it's not sexist. It's just a fact that the guy who has spent 6 months covering for that woman gets the promotion because he worked his ass off for it. Which is actually a reason for bring in paternity leave. It will mean that men will also spend time away with their child, levelling the playing field so to speak!

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many, many do. "Circumcision might curb HIV transmission therefore it's ok" is an extremely common argument.

That's why I have consistently qualified my position by saying "all non medically essential surgical mutilation of infant genitalia should be illegal".

How is that relevant? Nobody is arguing that medically essential circumcision shouldn't be allowed.

I think you're confusing religious people (mostly male!) looking for scientific arguments to justify their religious acts with feminism, which was the original accusation here.

And it is relevant because the fact that male circumcision can have a medical indication while FGM never can is the reason why they are both qualitatively and quantitatively different. Which is why it is not acceptable to accuse people fighting against FGM of some sort of gender blindness - again, the original accusation made about FGM/circumcision.

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:24PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is the (IMO moronic) SJW "privilege" argument at play, used to justify double standards.

FFS, where did I justify insulting men or anything else? You really are a complete fantasist, you know that?

I've had enough of this nonsense, you are clearly not amenable to discussion at all.

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 05:24PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you're confusing religious people (mostly male!) looking for scientific arguments to justify their religious acts with feminism, which was the original accusation here.

...eh?

And it is relevant because the fact that male circumcision can have a medical indication while FGM never can is the reason why they are both qualitatively and quantitatively different. Which is why it is not acceptable to accuse people fighting against FGM of some sort of gender blindness - again, the original accusation made about FGM/circumcision.

Anyone fighting against FGM who does not also fight against non medically indicated male circumcision is discriminating, and discriminating in a rather insidious manner.

Do you honestly not see how the idea that infant female genital integrity should be treated as sacrosanct rather than the idea that infant genital integrity should be treated as sacrosanct is appallingly discriminatory?

hatrickpatrick · 09-11-2014 05:25PM

volchitsa wrote: »

FFS, where did I justify insulting men or anything else? You really are a complete fantasist, you know that?

Your post, and others like it, reads to me like "men and women should be treated equally, BUT..."

I've had enough of this nonsense, you are clearly not amenable to discussion at all.

And yet I'm here, discussing.

shruikan2553 · 09-11-2014 05:31PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Yet so many male posters seem to feel they can do the equivalent when it is a woman making that point.

Woah, hold back on the misandry there. Just because I'm a man doesn't mean my opinions are worth less.

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:34PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I'm going to attack the post and not you here, just keep that in mind. That is honestly one of the worst posts I have seen. Black racism? Wut? It's racism by a black person. Also, any racism or sexism is just as severe for the person experiencing it. Being judged because of what you are rather than who you are can be massively upsetting for anyone.

As for women not getting jobs that's just nonsense. The best person always gets the job (there are equality laws in this country). The reason there aren't as many women in higher management is due to a multitude of reasons such as being unwilling to do as much over-time. As much as it sucks if a woman won't get a promotion because she has been off for 6 months on pregnancy leave it's not sexist. It's just a fact that the guy who has spent 6 months covering for that woman gets the promotion because he worked his ass off for it. Which is actually a reason for bring in paternity leave. It will mean that men will also spend time away with their child, levelling the playing field so to speak!

I didn't take it personally, no worries! As for the word I used, it was just to keep it a little shorter, I was aware it wasn't very clear, but I didn't think it would get hackles up! Replace by whatever paraphrase you like.

On the rest of the post, I agree I went a little off topic, and there's no point in going there, it's far too vast to discuss why women end up taking time out of the workforce and men don't. I have lots I could say about that, but it's a whole other thread.

Gong back to the original point about racist/sexist insults, would you accept instead my comparison that for a man to be insulted by women as being unable to multi task is as unpleasant for that man as it is for a woman to be told that she is hysterical, for example?

But that when there is an overall atmosphere of constant verbal aggression along sexist lines, it is more likely that a woman will feel intimidated by that than a man will? (And that includes online aggression, because there have been enough cases of online stalkers becoming RL stalkers for that to be a possibility.)

volchitsa · 09-11-2014 05:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Your post, and others like it, reads to me like "men and women should be treated equally, BUT..."

And yet I'm here, discussing.

But you're not. You have several times now simply made stuff up. That isn't discussing.

You're doing it again here too, by reading something into my post that you want to see there, when it isn't.

Again, not discussion, since you are responding to what you wanted me to write, not what I've written.

The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.*Mod instruction in OP*

Comments

The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.Mod instruction in OP