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

hatrickpatrick

beks101 wrote: »

So your way of 'respecting people's right to air opinions which are the opposite of mine' in this case is to tell those people to read another thread, move on with their lives and quit taking things so personally, clearly the interwebz - and the world - doesn't suit them? So basically, 'your opinion doesn't matter to me and get over it'? Very courteous.

How are you making that leap? I support all opinions' right to be expressed. That doesn't mean I support the opinion that some opinions should not be expressed. Telling people to read another thread is not telling them not to air their opinions, it's telling them not to tell others not to air their opinions lest someone find those opinions offensive.

This post reads very Sir Humphrey ish for some reason, so to clarify: I support opinions being aired. I oppose censorship on the grounds of offense. I apply the aforementioned principles to every debate, not just the gender debate.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

There was a good discussion here yesterday on PUA's that had to be closed because so many "new" members joined to derail the thread, that kind of thing is frustrating.

Why did it "have to be closed", exactly? If it was being derailed, so what? Why shut it down as opposed to letting the discussion continue? Who benefitted from closing it, and who would have been harmed by leaving it open?

Note that I didn't post in the aforementioned thread, don't know what it was about, have no dog in that fight except being anti-closure.

Wibbs

Yarf Yarf wrote: »

Most of the posts in this thread could be summed up with: "la la la la la! Not listening!" *fingers in ears*

Sand's post summed it up far better for me; "The OP is perfect catnip for a gender based mess, with the female assigned role of wanting to passive-aggressively complain about a problem in general without solving it, while males try to pin down specifics so the problem can be identified and solved and both frustrate the other for 30+ pages."

Shrap

tritium wrote: »

Is it getting worse, I don't think so (quite amazing though the number of posters with 150 odd posts who feel it is worse than in the past).

Just to clear up this, as I was one of the posters yesterday saying that it seems worse recently, I'm a re-reg of Obliq and have been hanging around here off and on since 2010.

eviltwin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why did it "have to be closed", exactly? If it was being derailed, so what? Why shut it down as opposed to letting the discussion continue? Who benefitted from closing it, and who would have been harmed by leaving it open?

Note that I didn't post in the aforementioned thread, don't know what it was about, have no dog in that fight except being anti-closure.

You'd have to ask the mod who closed it! I don't know why it was locked, it was a good thread.

That's another issue with AH. A few messers derail a thread and the entire thing is shut down. Can we not just ban them and let the rest of the grownups continue the conversation?

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
This is exactly the point I'm making, I disagree with them but what the hell? It's not going to stop me posting, because as the end of the day it's just not that important. There are threads I wish would be left alone but aren't, but one simply moves on and posts somewhere else. My point is, I apply the same to threads which offend me deeply - I don't call for people to be banned or for discussion to be stifled. I personally feel that there is a lot of evidence that this is becoming a central aspect of modern feminism however - shutting down discussion which is "offensive". Which ironically is the main reason I so strongly object to it.

So it's okay for you to stick around here where there is moderation that you don't like, but you are happy to suggest to others that they should not participate in online forums.

One of the reasons why I participate in Boards while I avoid some other forums is that it is (generally) reasonably well moderated.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd have to ask the mod who closed it! I don't know why it was locked, it was a good thread.

That's another issue with AH. A few messers derail a thread and the entire thing is shut down. Can we not just ban them and let the rest of the grownups continue the conversation?

Ah apologies, when you said "it had to be closed" I read that as you approving of the closure. My mistake.

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my opinion it's irrelevant. Someone genitalia, arguably one of the most psychologically significant organs, was altered surgically without their consent and in the absence of medical necessity. This is in my view the only relevant issue.



And that it's a violation, as it's done without consent, to an extremely important organ and psychologically significant, and in the absence of any medical necessity. Same as for girls, essentially, although to a different degree.



They share the common aspect that both involve surgical alteration of the genitals without consent and without medical necessity. Ergo both are wrong, both should be illegal. Stop looking at it from the point of view of the procedure and think about it instead from the bodily integrity point of view - all babies should have the right to full genital integrity unless medical emergency dictates otherwise. There's no need to further qualify that, as anyone stepping over that line would automatically be criminalized. Problem solved, for everyone.

Why only genital integrity then? If it isn't about the effects of surgery, but only the attack on the child's bodily integrity, it seems illogical to limit a law to the genitalia alone.

There's an argument to be made that parents shouldn't be allowed to remove their children's bodily integrity at all without good reason (ear piercing can have serious consequences if it gets infected for example).

What if someone wanted to tattoo their child? Do we need separate laws for each relevant organ?

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's okay for you to stick around here where there is moderation that you don't like, but you are happy to suggest to others that they should not participate in online forums.

You're not getting it, I'm not telling anyone not to participate, I'm simply saying that sticking around despite the presence of things you don't approve of (in my case over-moderation, in your case over-abundance of trolling) is pretty essential for survival on the internet. Calling for things you don't approve of to be banned is, in my view, rather immature - just as it would be rather immature if I called for Boards to have no moderation rather than just accepting that it's there and getting on with it.

One of the reasons why I participate in Boards while I avoid some other forums is that it is (generally) reasonably well moderated.

Let's imagine for a second that it wasn't. Why would it matter? Does reading random comments from random strangers cause you that much anguish?

masculinist

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And if you disagree with Boards' moderation policy and practice, why the hell are you still here?

What a peculiar question to ask somebody. Boards thrives on feedback and in fact has approved channels for feedback and disagreement. You know what sort of system did not thrive on feedback ? The USSR. I was not aware that Boards exists as an echo chamber. You can disagree with a rule yet still respect it. I believe we should join most of the rest of the world and drive on the other side of the road for example but you will still find me on the left hand side.

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

Why only genital integrity then? If it isn't about the effects of surgery, but only the attack on the child's bodily integrity, it seems illogical to limit a law to the genitalia alone.

I agree.

There's an argument to be made that parents shouldn't be allowed to remove their children's bodily integrity at all without good reason (ear piercing can have serious consequences if it gets infected for example).

I agree. Doing such without consent should indeed be banned.

What if someone wanted to tattoo their child? Do we need separate laws for each relevant organ?

Not at all, as far as I'm concerned non medical emergency related surgical alteration of infants should be banned across the board. It should be up to the individual and the individual alone.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't already a law against parents getting tattoos for infants? If there isn't, that's outrageous and there certainly should be.

hatrickpatrick

masculinist wrote: »

You can disagree with a rule yet still respect it.

And as such, you can disagree with a person's "offensive" opinion, yet still respect their right to hold and air it.

masculinist

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And as such, you can disagree with a person's "offensive" opinion, yet still respect their right to hold and air it.

This too. I actually meant to say this too. This is an absolute core principle for me. The line where I start to become offended is when this foundationstone of modern free society is attacked. Not particularly on boards but in general.

Mr. Incognito

41 pages. No examples. Just random bile.

*sigh*

I notice that any attempt to ask for evidence, any retort to the eleven year old report posted has been simply ignored or deflected to reference something else.

This is not a debate. Its a moan.

Anytime someone asks for some data they are either

1. Ignored
2. Derailed to something else such as online dating, Brendan shine, gaming, other threads, general random off topic nonsense

This thread will inevitably limp on going in circles and die a mutually frustrated death.

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree.

I agree. Doing such without consent should indeed be banned.

Not at all, as far as I'm concerned non medical emergency related surgical alteration of infants should be banned across the board. It should be up to the individual and the individual alone.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't already a law against parents getting tattoos for infants? If there isn't, that's outrageous and there certainly should be.

It should be put the other way round actually - you are right that these things are all banned except the religiously motivated ones.

I think that is the real question, why do we allow people to do such things to children on the grounds of religion?

bodice ripper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree.




Not at all, as far as I'm concerned non medical emergency related surgical alteration of infants should be banned across the board. It should be up to the individual and the individual alone.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't already a law against parents getting tattoos for infants? If there isn't, that's outrageous and there certainly should be.

There are no laws in Ireland to prevent it, particularly if the parents are ok with it.

In the Netherlands they recently dropped the age from 14 with a parent's consent (which is already disgustingly low...) to 12. god knows why.

masculinist

bodice ripper wrote: »

There are no laws in Ireland to prevent it, particularly if the parents are ok with it.

In the Netherlands they recently dropped the age from 14 with a parent's consent (which is already disgustingly low...) to 12. god knows why.

wow... I just realised this... I had thought you had to be at least 16 to get a tattoo...

Not according to here :

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/checklists/checklist_at_what_age_can_i.html


Just wow...

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

It should be put the other way round actually - you are right that these things are all banned except the religiously motivated ones.

I think that is the real question, why do we allow people to do such things to children on the grounds of religion?

Well we don't allow animal sacrifice, honour killing, forced marriage etc in the name of religion, and if FGM was religiously motivated I can't imagine for one second that it would be tolerated. So why are we tolerating male circumcision? Barbaric practices don't become OK because some religion espouses them.

hatrickpatrick

bodice ripper wrote: »

There are no laws in Ireland to prevent it, particularly if the parents are ok with it.

That's unbelievably f*cked up.

In the Netherlands they recently dropped the age from 14 with a parent's consent (which is already disgustingly low...) to 12. god knows why.

I'm ok with that, personally. But not for infants with no voice who can't actually say whether or not they're ok with it.

The Backwards Man

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Couldnt you report this and say I suspect this poster is trolling could mods please watch

Oh I do, and to any mods reading I apologise for the curtness of some of my reports, but I hate seeing hateful ******* thinking they're smart enough to get away with it.

bodice ripper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's unbelievably f*cked up.



I'm ok with that, personally. But not for infants with no voice who can't actually say whether or not they're ok with it.

no, the problem is if you are still in puberty, the tattoo can and will be ruined by the skin shifting. I mean, asides from the ethical problems

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well we don't allow animal sacrifice, honour killing, forced marriage etc in the name of religion, and if FGM was religiously motivated I can't imagine for one second that it would be tolerated. So why are we tolerating male circumcision? Barbaric practices don't become OK because some religion espouses them.

No disagreement there from me, but Germany (Berlin, IIRC) was accused of anti-semitism recently for trying to outlaw circumcision of baby boys, so not everyone agrees with you.

That still doesn't make male circumcision a male equivalent of FGM, for the reasons I outlined earlier. Particularly the fact that it is a recognized medical procedure, and there is even some evidence that circumcised men are less likely both to get and to transmit heterosexually-transmitted AIDS.

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're not getting it,

Oh, I'm getting it all right, including the point that "you're not getting it" is ofen a code for "you're thick". This thread is about Boards seeming to be unwelcoming to some people, and I would prefer Boards to be welcoming to most people.

I'm not telling anyone not to participate, I'm simply saying that sticking around despite the presence of things you don't approve of (in my case over-moderation, in your case over-abundance of trolling) is pretty essential for survival on the internet.

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

Calling for things you don't approve of to be banned is, in my view, rather immature - just as it would be rather immature if I called for Boards to have no moderation rather than just accepting that it's there and getting on with it.

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

Let's imagine for a second that it wasn't. Why would it matter? Does reading random comments from random strangers cause you that much anguish?

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.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

It's funny to see the number of "evidence please" posts on this after all the posts from people making up all sorts of sh1t about the single mother in that other thread

I haven't read that single mother thread. I suspect many others with an interest in this thread haven't either. So far all I've seen on this thread is the usual suspects doing their usual shyte. Very little actual ongoing discussion and as amazing as this sounds not many examples, even hypothetical ones, being given. Just cries of it being obvious, others claiming it isn't and round and round we go. Admittedly I haven't read all of the thread though.

Grayson

masculinist wrote: »

wow... I just realised this... I had thought you had to be at least 16 to get a tattoo...

Not according to here :

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/checklists/checklist_at_what_age_can_i.html


Just wow...

Parents pierce the ears of infants. That's just weird

The Strawman Argument

Em, I wasn't on here much for a few weeks there and there definitely seemed to be a big increase in it when I came back.
That "Sexy street harassment" thread in particular had (imo) some really bizarre opinions in it, wasn't keeping track of the people who were posting (i.e. to see if they usually seemed like intelligent, rational people) but it was disheartening stuff regardless. Perhaps the tensions from that thread/video permeated through the rest of the forum(s)?

Actually the scale of the negative reaction towards that video everywhere was very surprising to me considering how the video really isn't that provocative or anything.




No way am I reading 42 pages though, kind of glad I wasn't around when this thread was started, I'd've read them all! I assume everyone's agreed that it is a bit frightening and it's all resolved?

Pwindedd

I would agree, some what, that there is an undertone of sexism - it doesn't actually hurt me in any way and it doesn't prevent me posting - I just think the poster is a bit of a prick and try not to engage with them.

I would suggest only a very few posters are outright misogynistic though. And hey ho didn't they wave a little flag to say "woohoo here I am" in this very thread.

There are also a few regular posters who practically fall over themselves to rush to any thread to do with gender issues. They're quite eloquent and I would agree with some of their points - however I still feel the "them and us" mentality pervades some of their arguments.

And to those saying "examples please or it ain't happening" it would be extremely unfair to single out one or two posts/posters - to give a fair perspective of the issue one would have to identify all posts that had a sexist tone and then whittle down to the worst. One can have a general Christmassy feeling without having to identify the individual elements that make it Christmassy.

The OP had many thanks - that's a lot of users that identify with this issue - it won't make us go away or stop using boards, and most of us just ignore it. That doesn't make it right, fair or acceptable.

As an addition I would add that the Anti-British sentiments of some posters are far more hurtful to me than the sexist ones. It's a theme that pervades AH - mostly unchecked - and I for one am tired of it.

jackofalltrades

volchitsa wrote: »

That still doesn't make male circumcision a male equivalent of FGM, for the reasons I outlined earlier. Particularly the fact that it is a recognized medical procedure

Labiaplasty is also a recognised medical procedure.

and there is even some evidence that circumcised men are less likely both to get and to transmit heterosexually-transmitted AIDS.

AFAIK the study that is mainly put forward to back up this position seems to be widely discredited.

Tarzana2

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm personally convinced that circumcision of little boys probably is a form of mutilation, but it is still a false parallel. How many little girls have ever had this operation done for medical reasons? None. It is a purely mutilating act, specifically to impede sexual pleasure. Many men who have been circumcised claim that they experience as much sexual pleasure as non circumcised men.

The worst that one can say about male circumcision for religious reasons is that like any surgery it entails a risk for the child, and that it may possibly, in some cases, reduce sexual pleasure to some degree.

That is very different from FGM, so insisting that they are equivalent is, quite frankly, absurd.

I totally agree. I'm against both but there is simply no comparison between the two.

Male circumcision is unnecessary in most cases, and I'm against any kind of unnecessary procedure being carried out on a young baby with an immature immune system, but it, for most men, won't have a huge impact on their sex life the way FGM will for a great many women who were subjected to it. FGM is also, even in its least invasive form, is more invasive than male circumcision.

volchitsa

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Labiaplasty is also a recognised medical procedure.

AFAIAA, labiaplasty is a purely aesthetic issue, unlike circumcision, for which there are clear medical indications. So perhaps you could be more precise and say whether your claim is that FGM can sometimes be necessary or desirable?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

AFAIK the study that is mainly put forward to back up this position seems to be widely discredited.

I haven't heard this (though you could be right). Do you have any links?

Edit : the WHO doesn't seem to be aware of your claim, their main objection to it is that it is not a fail safe method and therefore may lead to greater risk-taking behaviour. But that isn't the same as saying it isn't true.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

The US CDC was also still under the impression that there was a real effect in April 2013 (the most recent article I came across in an admittedly brief google.) http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

But perhaps you have more recent information which disproves the theory?
Although of course none of that would change the fact that male circumcision can be medically indicated for individual boys and men, unlike FGM - which was my original point.

RDM_83 again

Turtwig wrote: »

I haven't read that single mother thread. I suspect many others with an interest in this thread haven't either.

The single mothers thread is actually an interesting example. A lot of posters here are taking it as evidence of misogyny, I think you could make an equally valid argument that its actually just a standard dole bashing/class bashing thread its just the subject is a woman. The issue isn't automatically't with her gender it was with entitlement, the same stuff would be leveled at a dead-beat dole cheat man with 5 kids from 5 different women. Thats my (male) reading of it though.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Oh I do, and to any mods reading I apologise for the curtness of some of my reports, but I hate seeing hateful ******* thinking they're smart enough to get away with it.

I could argue you and other posters do similar though but coming from a "right on" perspective. Like you were carded literally just last week on that thread about the 16 year old abusers for a post that seemed to be designed to divert the thread because you didn't like it (because of the accused Race I presume)
A hard line on the border line trolling would be good but it should recognize its not just the re-regs that do it, plenty of baiting goes on from high count posters that should know better.

Actually 2 points, without doubt there is some level of misogyny exists on AH, however is part of the feeling that the forum isn't welcoming perhaps also due to a clash of world views/political/social opinion, like I can guess which 5-15 posters will thank each post. Its pretty clear that there is groupings of the same posters that post in nearly every thread on a social justice/gender issue, if group X has more female posters in it and is attacked it may not be to do with gender it might simply be that group Y just disagrees with group X's views.
For the record one of my favourite posters used to be Clairefontain not but because I agreed with all her views (I didn't) but because they were coming from what felt like some-one outside the various cliques that exist on here.

Point 2 I've read in this thread the idea that previous posts/views from female posters are used as ammunition against them, I'l admit I've done this and it probably isn't "nice" behaviour. I've also done this to a few male posters I argue with a lot because shockingly people remember what other users have posted and with Advanced Search it takes literally about 2 seconds. Now this is borderline dickish behaviour but its actually common behaviour on here, people are constantly called on their previous posts or opinions, however its only when a female poster is involved that the stalking card/personal issue card seems to get pulled (yes I know sexist generalization sorry :eek: )

These points aren't seeking to reduce the impact of the actual misogyny that does exist here.

RDM_83 again

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

It's not on this forum though, it's on a forum for women. Time and time again mods stepped in to say the validity of feminism was not up for discussion in the thread, time and time again it happened. And disagreeing with certain aspects of feminism, yes, I totally get that, I'm one of those people myself. Fundamentally disagreeing with feminism in all its forms, telling women they don't know what they're talking about because they've been blinded by feminist doctrine, that feminism is inherently misandrist etc., and derailing a thread chock full of good examples of why feminism is still something we should care about by saying we're stupid for caring about it is different. A quick scoot through the history of the posters who pull it usually turns up all sorts of other stuff too. Disagreeing with feminism does not necessarily equal misogyny, no; it's just that an awful lot of the time it's misogynists do it. To put it another way, not all people who disagree with feminism or aspects thereof are misogynists, but all misogynists disagree with feminism.

For the record I did post on that thread a bit, I was never sanctioned or warned of so I appear to have stayed within guidelines, I was probably a annoying disruptive poster for the main users of the thread but when people post stuff that is either factually incorrect or use terms even the OP of this thread think are bad (and it was a genuine question RE mansplaining and male-feminists) I felt commenting was justified as I wasn't questioning a posters personal opinion.
That said I won't read the new thread in case I am tempted to comment but as someone who reads both tGC and tLL I've never seen a volume of male posters in a thread on there that matches the volume of female posters on a few threads on the tGC.

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you're talking about there, I don't think I read that thread.

Ah basically OP described his ex having a history that would be far far outside the norm for 95% of people (not simply more prudish/conservative people), yet the most popular opinion were stating that it "didn't matter" or judging the Op for his reaction. It was just a good example of how far the boards "right on" opinion can diverge from what people would likely say in real life if they were actually involved.

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

Nail on the head there.

Is there any solution to this though, short of barring any topic that involves woman in AH?

masculinist

I have yet to see specific examples of misogyny in boards. However I have seen misandry in the treatment of circumcision. Circumcision is invading someones bodily autonomy just as as FGM does. Circumcision is irreversible too [there are painful methods of trying to fix it as far as I know but this is like telling a rape victim that he or she doesnt have any diseases or pregnancy hence no harm done move along now after scrubbing your naked body with a wire brush and bleach for a few years. A disgusting attitude].

Comparing ear piercing of kids to a dangerous surgical procedure is irrelevant unless one wishes to outlaw ear piercing of kids. When ear piercing is used to somehow denigrate the arguments against circumcision then it is absolutely around the bend. Thousands of people wish they had never been circumcised against their will as babies. Many of them lose a lot of sexual pleasure and feel incomplete like a part of them has been stolen. You will find it difficult to find someone who wishes they never had their ears pierced. This is because an ear left to itself after being pierced will heal satisfactorily on its own. Foreskins don't grow back. I imagine you would have to get your ear pierced in a sewer to die from it. I am sure it does happen however the statics from circumcision are alarming in a way which ear piercing statistics are not.

Check this out:

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

''A new study published last week in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.''

Additionally:

''To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.''

Also below linked below : ''More baby boys die in the US from Circumcision than suffocation or car accidents!''
So why do we make such a fuss about child seats in cars etc ? Because those deaths are avoidable just like circumcision deaths are avoidable.

http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.ie/2010/09/more-baby-boys-die-in-us-from.html


Further information: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html

We all know the awareness campaigns, the sheer fuss made from cot death/SIDS yet circumcision creates equal numbers of deaths and in some places causes more deaths of baby boys than SIDS. And it is totally avoidable. The life of just one baby boy is surely worth leaving your egos at the door and stop defending this abhorrent practice of male circumcision learned from primitive stone age tribes. Please remember which century this is.

Mister Vain

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some threads are full of trolling but that IMO is not enough to tar the entire place with one brush and suggest that it's impossible to use it - if, as you say, the annoyance passes, then why not simply move on to the next thread?

Good question. I mean Jesus there are plenty of threads in AH that are fine, but some people would rather spend a lot of time and energy arguing with dickish posters that make up the minority. There's too much troll feeding. It's so obvious when a poster is just looking to get a rise out of someone, and unfortunately they almost always succeed.

masculinist

Mister Vain wrote: »

but some people would rather spend a lot of time and energy arguing with dickish posters

Some might find the usage of ''dickish'' to be interesting from a sexist point of view. This is clear evidence of institutionalized misandry when sexist language completely flys under everyones radar. Dicks are bad is the message therefore everyone who has one could be bad too and we can use them to describe bad people while objectifying them. I'm not one to complain much but on a thread about misogyny whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It's an interpretation which draws heavily upon feminist logic.

The Strawman Argument

masculinist wrote: »

Some might find the usage of ''dickish'' to be interesting from a sexist point of view. This is clear evidence of institutionalized misandry when sexist language completely flys under everyones radar. Dicks are bad is the message therefore everyone who has one could be bad too and we can use them to describe bad people while objectifying them. I'm not one to complain much but on a thread about misogyny whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It's an interpretation which draws heavily upon feminist logic.

Yeah, I mean, you don't have that with any words for female genitalia with negative connotations. Sure cúnt is a word people exclusively use for good things! :rolleyes:

masculinist

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

Yeah, I mean, you don't have that with any words for female genitalia with negative connotations. Sure cúnt is a word people exclusively use for good things! :rolleyes:

Thats not my concern. I dont use that language. I find it interesting how people tolerate certain things while ignoring other things. Its still a double standard. You dont need to use special alphabets to write dick unlike the other word. The word censor doesnt care about one but does about the other

ceadaoin.

volchitsa wrote: »

AFAIAA, labiaplasty is a purely aesthetic issue, unlike circumcision, for which there are clear medical indications. So perhaps you could be more precise and say whether your claim is that FGM can sometimes be necessary or desirable?

I haven't heard this (though you could be right). Do you have any links?

Edit : the WHO doesn't seem to be aware of your claim, their main objection to it is that it is not a fail safe method and therefore may lead to greater risk-taking behaviour. But that isn't the same as saying it isn't true.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

The US CDC was also still under the impression that there was a real effect in April 2013 (the most recent article I came across in an admittedly brief google.) http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

But perhaps you have more recent information which disproves the theory?
Although of course none of that would change the fact that male circumcision can be medically indicated for individual boys and men, unlike FGM - which was my original point.

There are some cases where labiaplasty is needed for medical reasons. Most are performed for aesthetic purposes though.

The size, colour, and shape of labia vary significantly, and may change as a result of childbirth, aging and other events.[1] Conditions addressed by labiaplasty include congenital defects and abnormalities such as vaginal atresia (absent vaginal passage), Müllerian agenesis (malformed uterus and fallopian tubes), intersex conditions (male and female sexual characteristics in a person); and tearing and stretching of the labia minora caused by childbirth, accident and age.

volchitsa

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There are some cases where labiaplasty is needed for medical reasons. Most are performed for aesthetic purposes though.

Is FGM a similar operation to the sort of reparatory surgery you mention though?

It's my understanding that there is no reparatory surgery of any sort that corresponds in any way to the type of surgery involved in FGM.

Pwindedd

masculinist wrote: »

Some might find the usage of ''dickish'' to be interesting from a sexist point of view. This is clear evidence of institutionalized misandry when sexist language completely flys under everyones radar. Dicks are bad is the message therefore everyone who has one could be bad too and we can use them to describe bad people while objectifying them. I'm not one to complain much but on a thread about misogyny whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It's an interpretation which draws heavily upon feminist logic.

Sorry but I would strongly disagree with this.

Dick vs cûnt. Prick vs geebag. Cock vs pussy. All derogatory terms used interchangeably. There's no leaning towards male slang words. Cûnt is universally accepted as a not very nice word. In the media - films etc - it's only rarely used and for shock value. That's why it's censored. I don't believe it's a sexism thing. I don't think you do either.

The Strawman Argument

masculinist wrote: »

Thats not my concern. I dont use that language. I find it interesting how people tolerate certain things while ignoring other things. Its still a double standard. You dont need to use special alphabets to write dick unlike the other word. The word censor doesnt care about one but does about the other

but its not so much about the literal translation of the word as the connotations which have been attached to it over time, and c*nt has received a far stronger level of negative association than dick (or any other words for penis that I can think of).
How much the evolution of c*nt into being the big bad word is down to sexism? I haven't a clue, much like dick and cock and so on, it's probably mostly down to a prudish society, the sound of the word surely played a big part too but there's definitely a much bigger argument that c*nt is an example of institutionalised misogyny (in the past, at least).


So, yeah, imo, to say "dickish" is institutionalised misandry is... eh... well... bollocks!

KomradeBishop

Good article on swearing I linked elsewhere a few days ago - had this to say about 'cúnt'

Some people have been puzzled about why cúnt should be taboo. It is not just an unprintable word for the vagina but the most offensive epithet for a woman in America. One might have thought that, in the male-dominated world of swearing, the vagina would be revered, not reviled. After all, it's been said that no sooner does a boy come out of it than he spends the rest of his life trying to get back in. This becomes less mysterious if one imagines the connotations in an age before tampons, toilet paper, regular bathing, and antifungal drugs.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/what-the-f

Cathy.C

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

but its not so much about the literal translation of the word as the connotations which have been attached to it over time, and c*nt has received a far stronger level of negative association than dick (or any other words for penis that I can think of).

That's true but the point which the user is attempting to make (I feel) is that while the connotation of those words does indeed have a more negative association, they are not embraced in the way which the term 'Don't be a dick' undoubtedly has.

There has been TED talks on the term. It is in charters.

Not too sure how I'd feel if 'Don't be a pussy' or 'Don't be a c***' was a point of a charter tbh.

Cathy.C

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

but its not so much about the literal translation of the word as the connotations which have been attached to it over time, and c*nt has received a far stronger level of negative association than dick (or any other words for penis that I can think of).

That's true but the point which the user is attempting to make (I feel) is that while the connotations of those words does indeed have a more negative association, those words are not embraced in the way which the term 'Don't be a dick' undoubtedly has. There has even been TED talks on the term. It is in charters.

Not too sure how I'd feel if 'Don't be a pussy' or 'Don't be a c***' was a point of a charter tbh.

masculinist

Cathy.C wrote: »

That's true but the point which the user is attempting to make (I feel) is that while the connotation of those words does indeed have a more negative association, they are not embraced in the way which the term 'Don't be a dick' undoubtedly has.

ThankYou . Yes thats what I meant to say. The C word is basically banned from everywhere. Most people don't use it and look down on it anyway. However the D word is universal.

Thrill

Cathy.C wrote: »

Not too sure how I'd feel if 'Don't be a pussy' or 'Don't be a c***' was a point of a charter tbh.

You could ask "If I wouldn't use a female body part to describe bad behavior then why would it be OK to use a male body part to do so?"

Don't be a dick is the third sentence in AH charter for instance. Why not "Don't be a twat"?

Pwindedd

Quite interesting if a little off topic - The word dick used as slang for penis appears to be a relatively recent development

"The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the penis. For example, in the 1665 satire The English Rogue by Richard Head, an unsavory character is referred to as a "dick":

The next Dick I pickt up for her was a man of a colour as contrary to the former, as light is to darkness, being swarthy; whose hair was as black as a sloe; middle statur'd, well set, both strong and active, a man so universally tryed, and so fruitfully successful, that there was hardly any female within ten miles gotten with child in hugger-mugger, but he was more than suspected to be Father of all the legitimate.


An 1869 slang dictionary offered definitions of "dick" including "a riding whip" and an abbreviation of dictionary, also noting that in the North Country, it was used as a verb to indicate that a policeman was eyeing the subject.[3] The term came to be associated with the penis through usage by men in the military around the 1880s."


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_(slang)

Wikipedia I know but the references appear sound enough.

BlatentCheek

Pwindedd wrote: »

Quite interesting if a little off topic - The word dick used as slang for penis appears to be a relatively recent development

"The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the penis. For example, in the 1665 satire The English Rogue by Richard Head, an unsavory character is referred to as a "dick":

The next Dick I pickt up for her was a man of a colour as contrary to the former, as light is to darkness, being swarthy; whose hair was as black as a sloe; middle statur'd, well set, both strong and active, a man so universally tryed, and so fruitfully successful, that there was hardly any female within ten miles gotten with child in hugger-mugger, but he was more than suspected to be Father of all the legitimate.


An 1869 slang dictionary offered definitions of "dick" including "a riding whip" and an abbreviation of dictionary, also noting that in the North Country, it was used as a verb to indicate that a policeman was eyeing the subject.[3] The term came to be associated with the penis through usage by men in the military around the 1880s."


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_(slang)

Wikipedia I know but the references appear sound enough.

The fact that the author was called Richard Head was merely a coincidence?

Mister Vain

Pwindedd wrote: »

Cûnt is universally accepted as a not very nice word.

It's all in the pronunciation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVUwmpFh65I

Pwindedd

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The fact that the author was called Richard Head was merely a coincidence?

Apparently so. Lol. Didn't even spot that. And Irish to boot!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=richard%20head%20irish%20writer&newwindow=1&gws_rd=ssl