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

DoYouEvenLift

There are actually people arguing in favour of infant genital mutilation for boys in Ireland now? God damn. I thought that stupidity was contained only to USA and a few other countries who do it mostly for aesthetic reasons. Irish people don't circumcise their kids nowadays I hope? It should be made illegal until 18 years old when you can make the decision for yourself but even then the only people who should choose it should be guys suffering from phimosis. It's not hard to teach your kids to clean themselves properly, chances are they'll even learn by intuition during puberty, and retracting the foreskin yourself for cleaning/masturbating when developing is pretty much necessary to avoid phimosis. If someone feels that their son will grow up to be too lazy to wash their penis when they shower everyday then by all means cut part of his dick off in exchange for thousands of nerve endings which will reduce his sexual pleasure when he's older.

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:

Lots of people use the work kunt as terms of endearment with friends, look at Australians and some Irish and English even use it in the same way we'd use "mate". The word has the same meaning as pussy, gash, muff or whatever other silly slang there is for vagina so if someone's offended over it then they should find equal offence in any of the other slang words.

RobYourBuilder

Pwindedd wrote: »

Cûnt is universally accepted as a not very nice word. In the media - films etc - it's only rarely used and for shock value.

What country do you live in? C*nt is a very common word in Ireland. Usually used when referring to male friends or acquaintances. "He's a sound/decent/mad//grumpy/generous/funny/whatever c*nt". Ditto in Australia and the UK. It's a grand word that nicely rolls of the tongue. Generally used as a term of endearment. If you think it sexist, that's your beeswax.

It's only Americans that freak out over the word. A lot of posters on here seem to use American buzzwords and adopt American sensibilities to things. Probably speak like seppos too.

It won't be long before they are waffling on about "white privilege" and telling "allies" to "shut up and listen".

DeadHand

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

There are actually people arguing in favour of infant genital mutilation for boys in Ireland now?

Who is?

Macavity.

Cunt is awful common. It's used affectionately, as an insult, to describe things ("that's cuntish") etc... I have no idea how it came up in this thread, and don't want to know. Just came in to add that you'd need to be living under a rock to think it's not used regularly in everyday life. Sure there's a student night (run by a well known nightclub) called CUNT in Dublin.

DoYouEvenLift

Macavity. wrote: »

Cunt is awful common. It's used affectionately, as an insult, to describe things ("that's cuntish") etc... I have no idea how it came up in this thread, and don't want to know. Just came in to add that you'd need to be living under a rock to think it's not used regularly in everyday life. Sure there's a student night (run by a well known nightclub) called CUNT in Dublin.

Lmao at this, friend of mine always uses that, and 'kunting'. I think it's a great word, use it frequently too now that I think about it. Anyone who takes offence to it is giving power to a simple word and if anything that'll just make people want to use it even more since it can cause a bit of shock. Such sensitive people lol, how can someone get offended by the sounds someone's vocal chords make, that's all that words are and it's up to the individual to interpret them and let them affect them

jackofalltrades

Tarzana2 wrote: »

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

Just because one is more severe doesn't men that they are not comparable.
They are comparable on many levels.

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.

This depends on a lot of factors, it's overly simplistic to say one is fine but the other is terrbile.

FGM is also, even in its least invasive form, is more invasive than male circumcision.

Not true, FGM in it's least invasive form Type 1(a) would be roughly the same as male circumcision.

jackofalltrades

volchitsa wrote: »

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/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006

In 2007, WHO/UNAIDS recommended male circumcision as an HIV-preventive measure based on three sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials (RCTs) into female-to-male sexual transmission. A related RCT investigated male-to-female transmission. However, the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomisation; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission.

It's going to take a while to read through the information in the CDC link, so I can't really comment on that.
But from what I can see circumcision has no effect whatsoever on stopping HIV from being passed on to other men/women from someone who is carrying the virus.
There seems to be a lot of people who are against condoms/trying to justify the continued practise of circumcision, when in reality the cheapest and easiest solutions is to use condoms.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

If you had vulvar cancer, than all or part of the labia could be removed in that operation.
Both men and women modify the genitalia for both medical and cultural/aesthetic reasons.

Tarzana2

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Not true, FGM in it's least invasive form Type 1(a) would be roughly the same as male circumcision.

This type rarely if ever happens. It's there as a classification but it is very rarely performed, as I'm sure you well know.

What can I say, I disagree that the two are comparable. It's not over simplistic to say circumcision has a much greater impact of female sexual pleasure than male. There will always be exceptions but generally there is a much greater impact on women sexually. Adding to this that, apart from the rarely performed type mentioned above, FGM is more invasive. So I guess you can argue that I was wrong early when I said even the mildest form of FGM is more invasive, but really, we know the mildest form doesn't really happen, whereas the male equivalent is the norm. Bit of a difference there. I don't agree with male circumcision and, IMO, putting it on a par with FGM actually damages arguments against it.

Anyhow, that's my view, no point going back and forth on it.

Cosmicfox

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lmao at this, friend of mine always uses that, and 'kunting'. I think it's a great word, use it frequently too now that I think about it. Anyone who takes offence to it is giving power to a simple word and if anything that'll just make people want to use it even more since it can cause a bit of shock. Such sensitive people lol, how can someone get offended by the sounds someone's vocal chords make, that's all that words are and it's up to the individual to interpret them and let them affect them

This is just silly. Words can be powerful and can be used to make threats. I'm sure you wouldn't go round throwing about racial slurs because you're well aware of the consequences those words can have.

DoYouEvenLift

Cosmicfox wrote: »

This is just silly. Words can be powerful and can be used to make threats. I'm sure you wouldn't go round throwing about racial slurs because you're well aware of the consequences those words can have.

Yeah, I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't care if someone I don't know or care about was trying to 'hurt my feelings', especially not with racist slurs because then I'd be fully aware that the person is an idiot and to just disregard them. Unless it was a close family member or friend whose opinions I actually care about I wouldn't be bothered by anything someone says to me

volchitsa

jackofalltrades wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006



It's going to take a while to read through the information in the CDC link, so I can't really comment on that.
But from what I can see circumcision has no effect whatsoever on stopping HIV from being passed on to other men/women from someone who is carrying the virus.
There seems to be a lot of people who are against condoms/trying to justify the continued practise of circumcision, when in reality the cheapest and easiest solutions is to use condoms.


If you had vulvar cancer, than all or part of the labia could be removed in that operation.
Both men and women modify the genitalia for both medical and cultural/aesthetic reasons.

The comparison with cancer is just silly: people get their lungs removed because of cancer, but that wouldn't be a justification for any form of lung surgery on children, particularly for religious reasons! Cancer surgery is often mutilating, but that is justifiable because the alternative is death.

You also don't seem to understand what FGM is, in its more extreme forms anyway - all or part of the clitoris is removed. It's not "just" labial surgery.

You can go on trying to create this false equivalence with FGM and male circumcision, or with cancer surgery, but it is just wrong.

masculinist

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

A hatred of women would mean the fact she was a serial single mom on welfare would have nothing to do with their attitude. Therefore I am not so sure misogyny is the explanation. It seems too easy and a lazy explanation in a lot of cases where it is claimed.
If people would have a negative opinion of a womans' character for being a serial single mother, yet have a positive to neutral opinion of her if she was married or childless then they might just be judgemental or dicks or right wing or a lot of other things. Since being female is constant yet the hate or judgement is not then there has to be many other possible explanations.


This is what many people think about when they hear cries of ''Misogynyyyyy''
I always take such claims with a pinch of salt due to silly stuff like below:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/2lizajc.jpg

masculinist

volchitsa wrote: »

The comparison with cancer is just silly: people get their lungs removed because of cancer, but that wouldn't be a justification for any form of lung surgery on children, particularly for religious reasons! Cancer surgery is often mutilating, but that is justifiable because the alternative is death.

You also don't seem to understand what FGM is, in its more extreme forms anyway - all or part of the clitoris is removed. It's not "just" labial surgery.

You can go on trying to create this false equivalence with FGM and male circumcision, or with cancer surgery, but it is just wrong.

All of this clip is worth watching however of specific relevance it is linked to start playing after 16 minutes and 11 seconds into it and at that moment it makes an interesting point about cancer

It starts off with a typical feminist attitude widespread across the femisphere blaming men for their problems in medical care then it shows the reality.

He takes 3 cancers. One mostly female , one male and one as a control which affects both.

Breast Cancer: 123.8 cases per 100k people resulting in 22.6 Deaths per 100k
Lifetime risk 12.3%

Prostate Cancer: 152 cases per 100k people resulting in 23 Deaths per 100k
Lifetime risk 15.3%

Lung Cancer: 61.4 cases per 100k people resulting in 49.5 Deaths per 100k
Lifetime risk 6.9%


Prevalence of Breast and Prostate cancer are similar.

Prevalence of lung cancer cases is roughly 15 to 20% of this yet accounts for half the deaths from cancer.

The biggest killer should be expected to get most of the funding right ? In fact the cancer which causes the least deaths gets the most funding and the cancer which causes the most deaths and affects only men gets the least. Prostate cancer gets far less than half the funding of Breast cancer despite killing more men. Breast cancer gets almost twice the funding of Lung cancer despite having a fraction of the deaths.

602,728,719 Million funding for Breast Cancer

265,094,495 Million funding for Prostate cancer

314,637,661 Million funding for lung cancer.


The only explanation is Female privilege. Where is this male privilege they keep ranting on about ? The Lady doth protest too much methinks :rolleyes:

Turtwig

Whaddya know facebook 'breast cancer awareness' chain games actually work!

masculinist

masculinist wrote: »

The only explanation is Female privilege. Where is this male privilege they keep ranting on about ? The Lady doth protest too much methinks :rolleyes:

Mod

You've shown your true colours. Please do not post in this thread again.

Tarzana2

I wonder how much funding anal cancer gets? Very little, I'd say. Unfortunately, some cancers get more research funding than others and I'd say a lot of it comes down to marketing and awareness campaigns.

Pwindedd

All that info only proves the mortality rate in breast cancer is higher than that of prostate cancer - admittedly the funding is disproportionate- what can we do to ensure this improves

http://www.womenagainstprostatecancer.org/

http://www.menagainstbreastcancer.org/

Ahh there we go mutual support - this is good!

pharmaton

I'm a bit of a homogenist myself

jimgoose

pharmaton wrote: »

I'm admittedly a bit of a homogenist myself

I like milk straight from the cooler, I do.

pharmaton

jimgoose wrote: »

I like milk straight from the cooler, I do.

I like all kinds of milk, no matter the shape of the cow or the udders it stems from

edit: i'd just like to clarify I am talking about Freisians and not women.

gormdubhgorm

Now I just saw a but men are been oppressed by the "femisphere" post. I have never heard the phrase "femisphere" in my life.
But for some reason I find it hilarious.

I am not sure which is funnier a woman using the phrase "invalidate my feelings" or a guy using the phrase "femisphere".

If I was a mod I would move this to the humour thread.

All I can think of now is polar ice-caps of the femisphere being slowly melted by "invalidation of feelings gases".

It could get very dangerous

Mr. Incognito

This thread is a series of off topic circular arguments, circuling the drain.

Pwindedd

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Now I just saw a but men are been oppressed by the "femisphere" post. I have never heard the phrase "femisphere" in my life.
But for some reason I find it hilarious.

I am not sure which is funnier a woman using the phrase "invalidate my feelings" or a guy using the phrase "femisphere".

If I was a mod I would move this to the humour thread.

All I can think of now is polar ice-caps of the femisphere being slowly melted by "invalidation of feelings gases".

It could get very dangerous

The word "spermjack" was used by the same poster in another thread - I have visions of poor men held at gunpoint over a paper cup trying against all the odds to "surrender the goods"

How Soon Is Now

I really dont envy the mods in AH's. Imagine having to keep an eye on and read threw all of this kind of ****e...... And this is just one thread in here!

jackofalltrades

volchitsa wrote: »

The comparison with cancer is just silly: people get their lungs removed because of cancer, but that wouldn't be a justification for any form of lung surgery on children, particularly for religious reasons! Cancer surgery is often mutilating, but that is justifiable because the alternative is death.

You also don't seem to understand what FGM is, in its more extreme forms anyway - all or part of the clitoris is removed. It's not "just" labial surgery.

You can go on trying to create this false equivalence with FGM and male circumcision, or with cancer surgery, but it is just wrong.

I'm not comparing anything to cancer. That's just you you reading what you want and going off on a cynical, irrelevant tangent.

You originally said:

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.

You're claiming that modifying male genitalia has a medical purpose, where as modifying female genitalia is just about mutilating. Which I have proven to be incorrect.

FGM and circumcision are comparable, one being more severe than the other doesn't take away from that.

Mister Vain

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not sure which is funnier a woman using the phrase "invalidate my feelings" or a guy using the phrase "femisphere".

Yes its all getting a bit comical now at this stage.

volchitsa

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm not comparing anything to cancer. That's just you you reading what you want and going off on a cynical, irrelevant tangent.

You originally said:

You're claiming that modifying male genitalia has a medical purpose, where as modifying female genitalia is just about mutilating. Which I have proven to be incorrect.

FGM and circumcision are comparable, one being more severe than the other doesn't take away from that.

No, the tangent was when you dragged in cancer treatment. Not me. You.
Someone with penile cancer can need a penis amputation - would you seriously try to use that to make a point about circumcision? It's totally unrelated.

I never said that any surgery on the female genitalia was only aesthetic, don't be stupid. you mentioned a form of aesthetic surgery - if you meant cancer surgery you should have said so, but it's still a different form of surgery to FGM.

To be clear, since you seem to need it all spelled out for you FGM is as unrelated to any form of cancer surgery as circumcision is to penis amputation.

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

Therefore the two are qualitatively and quantitatively different.

That's just a fact, no matter how much you would like to claim otherwise.

Soft Falling Rain

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I wonder how much funding anal cancer gets? Very little, I'd say. Unfortunately, some cancers get more research funding than others and I'd say a lot of it comes down to marketing and awareness campaigns.

Lobbying and the motivations of those providing the funding are the key aspects you're looking for. Nothing really to do with anything gender specific.

DeadHand

Pwindedd wrote: »

The word "spermjack" was used by the same poster in another thread - I have visions of poor men held at gunpoint over a paper cup trying against all the odds to "surrender the goods"

Being held at gunpoint would actually help me "surrender the goods" a little quicker, but that's just me...

... I mean, er, yeah, misogyny... terrible business... Carry on...

DEFTLEFTHAND

DeadHand wrote: »

Being held at gunpoint would actually help me "surrender the goods" a little quicker, but that's just me...

... I mean, er, yeah, misogyny... terrible business... Carry on...

A gun is a great equalsier.

JRant

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Lobbying and the motivations of those providing the funding are the key aspects you're looking for. Nothing really to do with anything gender specific.

The HPV vaccine is very much gender specific despite it having benefits when given to young boys as well as young girls.

Imagine a vaccine was being only given to men even though it had benefits for both sexes!!

UCDVet

I think it'd be interesting to see some sort of analysis of the amount of misogyny verse misandry on boards.ie

I remember when I introduced my wife to Team Fortress 2 (a silly online game with voice chat). Whenever I play, I fully expect that some 13 year-old kid is going to make fun of my fat Mom or whatever. Because that's just the level of maturity you expect to find when you play TF2 online. My wife played, got insulted, and said, 'I stopped playing. It's just a bunch of *sexist* guys playing who called me names.'

The truth is, had they NOT insulted her, they would have been sexist. See, they are jerks who insult everyone. Not insulting her because she's a woman would have been giving preferential treatment based on gender.

volchitsa

JRant wrote: »

The HPV vaccine is very much gender specific despite it having benefits when given to young boys as well as young girls.

Imagine a vaccine was being only given to men even though it had benefits for both sexes!!

If your point is that it is being withheld from men, you have got that backways - women are being given the vaccine (and bearing the individual risk that entails) while men, as well as women, will benefit if it is eradicated.

The ethics of mass vaccination are complex. The German measles vaccine was given only to girls, when both boys and girls can catch it, and in fact any damage done by the illness itself is to the fetus, not to the girl herself. It's actually a little like vaccinating boys against HPV - someone else is the main beneficiary. Of course the law in Ireland removes the pregnant woman's normal right to bodily integrity, so that changes things too. But to come back to HPV, the reason for not vaccinating boys was the lack of any proof that the benefit to boys was greater than the risk of the vaccine. (There's not actually any proof that it prevents cervical cancer in girls either, just a strong presumption.)

volchitsa

UCDVet wrote: »

I think it'd be interesting to see some sort of analysis of the amount of misogyny verse misandry on boards.ie

I remember when I introduced my wife to Team Fortress 2 (a silly online game with voice chat). Whenever I play, I fully expect that some 13 year-old kid is going to make fun of my fat Mom or whatever. Because that's just the level of maturity you expect to find when you play TF2 online. My wife played, got insulted, and said, 'I stopped playing. It's just a bunch of *sexist* guys playing who called me names.'

The truth is, had they NOT insulted her, they would have been sexist. See, they are jerks who insult everyone. Not insulting her because she's a woman would have been giving preferential treatment based on gender.

Someone calls your mother fat, and you think they've insulted you?
That looks like misogyny from the person doing the insulting and a very sexist view of things from you!

UCDVet

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone calls your mother fat, and you think they've insulted you?
That looks like misogyny from the person doing the insulting and a very sexist view of things from you!

Maybe it's a cultural thing...but where I grew up; yes. Without any doubt, insulting someone's parents was EXACTLY the same as insulting themselves. 'My Dad can beat up your Dad'.

Similarly, insulting someone's possessions was the same as insulting them. 'Your shoes are ugly' is an insult to the person who is wearing the shoes.

Misogyny is a HATRED or DISLIKE of women (according to Google's define:). If you honestly think someone insulting my mother (when they have never met my mother nor myself) means that they actually have a HATRED or even a dislike of women is pretty silly. And what if he insulted me? I'm a man, would that be misandry? I wouldn't think so.

If you look hard enough for misogyny, you'll find it. Even where it doesn't exist. I remember, as a child, a classmate of mine made fun of my dog. Does that mean he HATES dogs? No. Does that mean he disliked dogs? No. In fact, his family has two dogs.

It means he was a kid who was making fun of something he knew I had.

Someone making fun of my Mom online is not misogyny and I haven't the slightest idea of what in my post would make you think I'm sexist....

volchitsa

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe it's a cultural thing...but where I grew up; yes. Without any doubt, insulting someone's parents was EXACTLY the same as insulting themselves. 'My Dad can beat up your Dad'.

Similarly, insulting someone's possessions was the same as insulting them. 'Your shoes are ugly' is an insult to the person who is wearing the shoes.

Misogyny is a HATRED or DISLIKE of women (according to Google's define:). If you honestly think someone insulting my mother (when they have never met my mother nor myself) means that they actually have a HATRED or even a dislike of women is pretty silly. And what if he insulted me? I'm a man, would that be misandry? I wouldn't think so.

If you look hard enough for misogyny, you'll find it. Even where it doesn't exist. I remember, as a child, a classmate of mine made fun of my dog. Does that mean he HATES dogs? No. Does that mean he disliked dogs? No. In fact, his family has two dogs.

It means he was a kid who was making fun of something he knew I had.

Someone making fun of my Mom online is not misogyny and I haven't the slightest idea of what in my post would make you think I'm sexist....

Read your own examples, and you'll see why it's misogyny : someone's dad is used as a way of increasing their own importance, someone's mum is denigrated in the same way as the objects they possess, or even their dog.

That's how it works. I was joking (hence the smiley) about you being sexist, but the insults are clearly misogynistic, and your wife was probably correct to see them as such. The fact that you don't see it shows that you haven't been on the receiving end of misogyny, that's all.

Another question about this : if a black person that you know (and presumably respect) told you that he found a particular comment that used racist terms was racist, would you be so ready to dismiss that as him just looking for racism where there was none?

Let's say the insult was "wog" - "well", you'd say, "that guy calls me wog too, it's not racism, with him, it's just what he says. Don't be looking for racism where there isn't any."

Would you say that to a black person? Really?

Tarzana2

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Lobbying and the motivations of those providing the funding are the key aspects you're looking for. Nothing really to do with anything gender specific.

And, not trying to trivialise cancer, but some forms are more marketable. It totally sucks, of course. Yes, breast cancer tends to be more aggressive than prostate cancer, but the majority of men will get prostate cancer at some stage, so it's still important to research. And, as per my example above, there are types of cancer that will always fail to attract much funding because they are difficult to raise awareness for.

shruikan2553

volchitsa wrote: »

Read your own examples, and you'll see why it's misogyny : someone's dad is used as a way of increasing their own importance, someone's mum is denigrated in the same way as the objects they possess, or even their dog.

That's how it works. I was joking (hence the smiley) about you being sexist, but the insults are clearly misogynistic, and your wife was probably correct to see them as such. The fact that you don't see it shows that you haven't been on the receiving end of misogyny, that's all.

Another question about this : if a black person that you know (and presumably respect) told you that he found a particular comment that used racist terms was racist, would you be so ready to dismiss that as him just looking for racism where there was none?

Let's say the insult was "wog" - "well", you'd say, "that guy calls me wog too, it's not racism, with him, it's just what he says. Don't be looking for racism where there isn't any."

Would you say that to a black person? Really?

You must be new to online games. Some people insult others and their family to annoy that person. Insulting a woman is not misogyny just as much as insulting a man is misandry. Its trying to make minor thing like that look like misogyny that trivialises real misogyny.

My girlfriend always tells me there is a huge spider when she finds one. It is rarely huge so now I assume she is over reacting and am surprised when it is actually huge. Its just like the boy who cried wolf.

Harry Angstrom

Perhaps I'm being naive, but posting this in the After Hours section is a bit like pushing a hen into a foxhole.

There can only be one outcome.

volchitsa

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You must be new to online games. Some people insult others and their family to annoy that person. Insulting a woman is not misogyny just as much as insulting a man is misandry. Its trying to make minor thing like that look like misogyny that trivialises real misogyny.

My girlfriend always tells me there is a huge spider when she finds one. It is rarely huge so now I assume she is over reacting and am surprised when it is actually huge. Its just like the boy who cried wolf.

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?

jackofalltrades

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?