Sexism - a cacophony of silence from the Mod team.

Patchos

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
2,052
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
193
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
i'm not sure what to think yet.

hey mb, take a deep breath, let it out and repeat. relax, you are angry at the moment which is understandable.

hey intrigue, she is a bit impassioned. seems a bit of a rant. so, there may be sexism but, a bit of name calling too. may not like what i wrote, or, thinking i'm "one dimensional" in what i was saying, but, no need for name calling. she posted and wanted opinions.

Instead of posting about the actual topic you told her to calm down. That's a dismissive and patronising thing to do. Kind of like asking if she's on her period, hurr durr.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
I was refereing to the lot of it. Most of it is on a slow simmer, but take a look at threads llike: "why can't women measure...", or any permutation of that, and you tell me if there is not a sexist, chauvinistic, bent.

Just saying.


Ah yes, interesting you should mention that thread actually, because it contains examples of sexism in both kinds as per this post by a female member-

Methinks men suffer from the same problem. Extreme rounding up or down seems to be an issue, especially for the mind.

"Oh noooo, am I too small? I am too small! Oh noooo"...... and..... "I am 11x7 fuckeah"


Also: guys suck at guessing jug size, dress size, shoe size, and pretty much any other size related to gifted clothing.


http://www.lpsg.org/3640832-post21.html


That thread is sexist, I'm not sure it's chauvinistic unless being able to guestimate cock size is some socially desirable trait the lack of which implies inferiority.

Do the contents of that thread constitute hate speech? I'm even less certain about that.

Am I saying hate speech does not occur? No.


I do think we need to be clear on terms though, generalising positively, negatively or neutrally about an entire sex of people is sexism.

Not all instances of sexism can be regarded as hate speech.

Hate speech by the definition we use here is any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
 
Last edited:

Patchos

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
2,052
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
193
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
"Methinks men suffer from the same problem. Extreme rounding up or down seems to be an issue, especially for the mind.

"Oh noooo, am I too small? I am too small! Oh noooo"...... and..... "I am 11x7 fuckeah"


Also: guys suck at guessing jug size, dress size, shoe size, and pretty much any other size related to gifted clothing. "


Hilaire, that example is not sexism, it's busting the myth that only women are bad at measuring by noting that just as many men are bad at it too.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Hilaire, that second example is not sexism, it's busting the myth that only women are bad at measuring by noting that just as many men are bad at it too.


No, sorry, if you make a generalised statement about a whole sex, as the examples quoted do, that's sexism. She doesn't say "just as many men" she simply says "men" and "guys" and does not qualify her generalisations at all.


Applying the term "sexism" accurately isn't me saying "what was said was wrong/evil/nasty/whatever" it's just me being accurate.


Nor I hasten to add am I saying that sexism about men is as common here as sexism about women, nor am I claiming that one negates the other or that either should be tolerated if they amount to hate speech.


Nor am I saying "oh the poor men of LPSG are put upon and have to take all this nasty sexism on the chin, what are you whingers complaining about?" or anything like that.


I'm just explaining the need for us all to look at the material we're discussing clearly is all.
 
Last edited:

Patchos

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
2,052
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
193
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
No, sorry, if you make a generalised statement about a whole sex, as the examples quoted do, that's sexism. She doesn't say "just as many men" she simply says "men" and "guys".


Applying the term "sexism" accurately isn't me saying "what was said was wrong/evil/nasty/whatever" it's just me being accurate.


Nor I hasten to add am I saying that sexism about men is as common here as sexism about women, nor am I claiming that one negates the other or that either should be tolerated if they amount to hate speech.


Nor am I saying "oh the poor men of LPSG are put upon and have to take all this nasty sexism on the chin, what are you whingers complaining about?" or anything like that.


I'm just explaining the need for us all to look at the material we're discussing clearly is all.

That post I highlighted was quite obviously written tongue-in-cheek. Are you being obtuse?
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
That post I highlighted was quite obviously written tongue-in-cheek. Are you being obtuse?


Was it? I genuinely did not know that, which leads me to ask if you are sure that every example of sexism about women you've ever reported was not tongue in cheek? (not that it matters much really, because "tongue in cheek" may be used to excuse all manner of horrid prejudice)


And no I'm not being obtuse, do me the politeness of presuming I'm discussing this with you in good faith or I can't discuss this with you at all. :redface:
 

Patchos

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
2,052
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
193
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Was it? I genuinely did not know that, which leads me to ask if you are sure that every example of sexism about women you've ever reported was not tongue in cheek? (not that it matters much really, because "tongue in cheek" may be used to excuse all manner of horrid prejudice)


And no I'm not being obtuse, do me the politeness of presuming I'm discussing this with you in good faith or I can't discuss this with you at all. :redface:

Yes it was, but most people would have picked that considering who the poster was and the context of the thread. Kind of like how I post? You usually get the joke.
 
Last edited:

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Yes it was, but most people would have picked that considering who the poster was and the context of the thread. Kind of like how I post? You usually get the joke.


Oh well bully for you Patchos, I feel stupid and ostracised now.


In any event, as I said a sexist joke is a sexist joke whether it represents the actual views of the teller or not.
 
Last edited:

spoon

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
3,206
Media
11
Likes
116
Points
208
Location
On a dark desert highway.
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Instead of posting about the actual topic you told her to calm down. That's a dismissive and patronising thing to do. Kind of like asking if she's on her period, hurr durr.


no, wasn't meant as dismissive, or patronizing. every one has a right to feel as they feel and discuss it. sometimes when getting in a discussion, i find it helpful to breath deeply, relax, and then go back in swinging.

ok, i apologize for stepping on any toes. :notworthy:
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Yes it was, but most people would have picked that considering who the poster was and the context of the thread. Kind of like how I post? You usually get the joke.



In any event I think you're ignoring the other portion of what I said

Applying the term "sexism" accurately isn't me saying "what was said was wrong/evil/nasty/whatever" it's just me being accurate.


Nor I hasten to add am I saying that sexism about men is as common here as sexism about women, nor am I claiming that one negates the other or that either should be tolerated if they amount to hate speech.


Nor am I saying "oh the poor men of LPSG are put upon and have to take all this nasty sexism on the chin, what are you whingers complaining about?" or anything like that.


I'm just explaining the need for us all to look at the material we're discussing clearly is all.


Because my point about the thread now in question was that Nico was using it as an example of the failure of the Mod Team to properly moderate the site for misogyny.


I was merely trying to be clear on what exactly people want us to moderate, do people want us to moderate all instances of sexist discrimination (whether negative, positive, or neutral) or just hate speech or both?


And where are we to draw the lines on what instances of both or either we moderate?
 
Last edited:

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
Ah yes, interesting you should mention that thread actually, because it contains examples of sexism in both kinds as per this post by a female member-




http://www.lpsg.org/3640832-post21.html


That thread is sexist, I'm not sure it's chauvinistic unless being able to guestimate cock size is some socially desirable trait the lack of which implies inferiority.

Do the contents of that thread constitute hate speech? I'm even less certain about that.

Am I saying hate speech does not occur? No.


I do think we need to be clear on terms though, generalising positively, negatively or neutrally about an entire sex of people is sexism.

Not all instances of sexism can be regarded as hate speech.

Hate speech by the definition we use here is any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
Oh i have seen the sexism (and all others isms) shown across the board. The ladies don't get a free pass, though theirs tends to be reactionary to the mens' sexism.

Never said that sexism inherently was hate speech. Went a far way to not say that. Said it sometimes is, and that while things could be better, you mods were trying to do your jobs, and we members can help by continuing to report when we think we see a blatant example. Then you all can decide if it crossed the line:

Sexism runs rampant here, but as MoT pointed out the personal boundaries any one individual has, may be completely different form any others. This is further complected m th nature of the existing relationship. For example: Some of my straight male friends can call me a fag. I take no offense. If a relative stranger said it? I would go ballistic.I cn call my sister a bitch. I can be upset when i do so. I am NOT saying it specifically as a sexist insult, but a general one. In the first example it was said playfully by twoo sepreate parties. My reaction is as dffernet as night and day. In the example of my sis, she KNOWS i am not making sexist remark (we use bitch to describe whinny snappish people of ANY gender) and so it has no more weight than if I said "fucking whiner. Insult yes, but not with any added weight.

So the mods then have to determine the tone, and intent of the post, compare it to I assume, past interpersonal relationships (post history) to put it's usage into context, then hold a quorum and vote as to what is to be done.

I do see MB stance though on knowing the why. In this case i would have wondered if the former michael-whatever, had edited the pm. But that's just how my mind works.

MB, i don't think i have had any direct interaction with you here (I think I supported you i a thread or two but never had any discourse with you). I haven't been here as long, and have my suspicions of how the mods conduct themselves. But in this case, though they should have alerted you to the fact that the title had the "sexist content" label, they don't legally have to do so. Of course had they perhaps we could have been spared the bulk of this thread.

Does sexism exist here? Yep. Is it handled as well as can be? No. All we can do is keep alerting people at large of the problem and bring questionable threads, posts and blogs to the mods/admins.

I have made my share of reports regarding a certain individual at LPSG, who said insanely sexist, misogynistic crap. The mods, for whatever reason, did nada (nothing in the Moderator Actions thread, no pm, nothing)Not sure what the deal is.

LaFemme and MoT have the essence of this locked down, though.:biggrin:
So i still say sexism runs rampant here (2b : profusely widespread) though i will amend my statement to say that both sexes are guilty of it, though my personal observation is that it is more prolific among the men in regards to the women, than vice versa. Also the women, on a while, appear to me at least, to be having reactionary sexism if that makes any sense.

I would also point out that sexism is not necessarily hate speech, and that we need to alert the mods/admins when we (the members) think we have witnessed an occurrence of it becoming so. The mods may be more clear, though they do need to protect the people's privacy and the TOS.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
If you are not the subject of a particular type of discrimination, you're empathy to its victims can only be objective. Despite our rules here whcih do their best to objectify what is unacceptable, moderation remains to various degrees and in varying circumstances subjective. VB's banning is a case in point IMO.

And yes, I think that sexist behaviour exists and is often not so thoroughly sanctioned officially. That said, the sexists do usually get the online equivalent of a dark room and several baseball bats.
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If you are not the subject of a particular type of discrimination, you're empathy to its victims can only be objective. Despite our rules here whcih do their best to objectify what is unacceptable, moderation remains to various degrees and in varying circumstances subjective. VB's banning is a case in point IMO.
Drfts, as much as I love VB and I really fucking do (from his looks to his points of view :redface:) there hasn`t been a banning more clear than his.
He had warnings, multiple temp. bans and finally a perma ban. And I dare to say that the mods have been very patient with him.
That being said, I really hope that he re-applies at some point and gets reinstated!
 

Patchos

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
2,052
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
193
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Oh well bully for you Patchos, I feel stupid and ostracised now.

I'm quite sure you don't.

In any event, as I said a sexist joke is a sexist joke whether it represents the actual views of the teller or not.

Except when it's not a sexist joke. Which it wasn't. If we don't agree on this then there's not much point in my input any further in this thread, I guess? lol :trink26::wizard::popworm:
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Except when it's not a sexist joke. Which it wasn't. If we don't agree on this then there's not much point in my input any further in this thread, I guess? lol :trink26::wizard::popworm:


Well this thread isn't "Questions for Hilaire about sexism", so just because you and I have differing opinions about a very specific and not wholly relevant point doesn't mean you shouldn't be involved in this thread. You know I have huge respect for your views and I'd be extremely interested to know what your thoughts are about the points raised by MB.
 

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
I think i have been exceedingly clear, but, i guess i haven't. becuase here i read this:

In any event I think you're ignoring the other portion of what I said




Because my point about the thread now in question was that Nico was using it as an example of the failure of the Mod Team to properly moderate the site for misogyny.


I was merely trying to be clear on what exactly people want us to moderate, do people want us to moderate all instances of sexist discrimination (whether negative, positive, or neutral) or just hate speech or both?


And where are we to draw the lines on what instances of both or either we moderate?
I was doing no such thing. I was using it as a supporting example of how sexism runs rampant here. Rampant in meaning i was using it:profusely widespread. As I stated here:

Ahh...Ok. Here we run afoul of a difference in definition:

You are using it as 2a: marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or absence of restraint <rampant rumors>


I am using it as 2b:b : profusely widespread <rampant weeds>

rampant def

Now i did NOT say the sexism was boiling over Hilaire. I was refereing to the lot of it. Most of it is on a slow simmer, but take a look at threads llike: "why can't women measure...", or any permutation of that, and you tell me if there is not a sexist, chauvinistic, bent.

Just saying.

And My meaning of rampant should have been made clear when I said:


Hope that clears up any misunderstanding stemming from a difference of language use from across the pond.
Note i did NOT say misogyny, which not the same thing.

And That was only in response to YOUR misunderstanding of my use of the word "rampant" (and here I was thinking to clear up that misunderstanding), which you posted here:

Genuinely I'm following this thread with great interest and taking on board what people are saying.

But I don't recognise this characterisation, I don't think "sexism runs rampant", because that would be to suggest that it goes unchallenged and without reprimand, and even if you think it isn't reprimanded enough it is reprimanded.

Now. I think I have clarified things to the point of crystal, Hilaire. I am trying my best to be as clear in my wording as possible, and to see where things tend to get derailed in our convos. In this case it was over the def of one word.