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

volchitsa

Bhopkov wrote: »

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

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

Does anyone have a coherent argument against this statement?

volchitsa

Turtwig wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Which I suspect is significant in itself.

The Strawman Argument

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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


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

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

Does anyone have a coherent argument against this statement?

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

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

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

mrkiscool2

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

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

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

volchitsa

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

mrkiscool2

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

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

...eh?

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

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

And yet I'm here, discussing.

shruikan2553

volchitsa wrote: »

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

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

volchitsa

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

And yet I'm here, discussing.

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

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

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

volchitsa

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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

That bears absolutely no relation to what I posted.

J Mysterio

volchitsa wrote: »

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

Why is it more likely a woman would feel intimidated than a man? Everyone is different. There are timid men and timid women.

volchitsa

J Mysterio wrote: »

Why is it more likely a woman would feel intimidated than a man? Everyone is different. There are timid men and timid women.

You really can't see why? It's not about being timid, it's about physical strength. It's the same reason old people, male and female, are generally more easily frightened than young adults. If I turn up at a random man's door, I am unlikely to be able to force my way in if he tries to stop me, whereas if a woman tries to hold the door shut against a man, she basically can't. And that's just the start.

And we're done here. There's no need to keep going around in circles.

The mods are currently discussing this issue, we will post a proper response a little later on.

Thank you.