After Hours ban...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100381897&postcount=232

Was the post, which Mod Peregrine said was "sexist and disgusting".

I don't think distinguishing between male on female and female on male violence is sexist at all. No more than pointing out that context means black on white prejudice is not the same as white on black prejudice, and so on for any other groups of persons.

When I approached him first, he refused to engage, for the peculiar reason that he had "a feeling that it would be pointless". I kinda agree to the extent that I don't think I'd persuade him to change his mind...but his reasoning suggests he thinks I have some particularly strong opinion on the matter. I don't. I have an opinion. He may disagree with it. I'm just not sure where having it breaks the charter.

Edit - changed to Social and Fun

Pawwed Rig

Hi Conor

I will look at this for you. I note you have completed step 1 of the process. Thx for that.
Can you forward to me (or post here) the pm exchange with the relevant mod along with any other items you wish to be taken into consideration.

Cheers

Thanks for quick response. PMed you the exchange.

Not jumping up and down and saying it's outrageous and I'm appalled. Just think a week ban a bit disproportionate...and disagree that it's sexist and disgusting...happy to concede it may be considered archaic or subject to criticism.

Pawwed Rig

Apologies for the delay but am still waiting on a response from the mod.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Apologies for the delay but am still waiting on a response from the mod.

Not at all. Thanks. Appreciate ye have lives and this is hardly the Cuban Crisis!

Pawwed Rig

Hi Conor

There is no doubt that your post was crude and sexist. I am concerned that you have not acknowledged that or indeed cannot see that.
The question for me (and is why I am still thinking on this) is whether it was posted out of honest ignorance or that you were trolling. The mod seems to think the latter but I am not sure.
If you could comment I would appreciate it.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hi Conor

There is no doubt that your post was crude and sexist. I am concerned that you have not acknowledged that or indeed cannot see that...

Why is it undoubtedly sexist?

I don't believe in gender symmetry when it comes to violence, that's about it. I believe female on male violence is wholly different to the significantly more serious problem of male on female violence, and to conflate the two is to dilute the preponderance and gravity of the latter.

I don't think there is anything sexist or even that controversial about such a view.

http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmetry%20in%20dom.pdf

To put it in another way, King of Queens on tv now. In it, the tiny Carrie used to bring the large Doug under control by catching his nipples and twisting them until he screamed. That's comedy. If he did it to her, there would rightly be outrage. I'm not some crusader, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm simply saying that to distinguish male on female violence from female on male violence is certainly not sexist, and in fact is accepted by a lot more than me...King of Queens was after all one of the most popular US comedies in recent years. I think Melissa McCarthy is now the woman who is used in "beating up men" scenes in comedies for our amusement, I can't think of a similar male role.

Pawwed Rig

Conor

OK I have looked into this in detail and have come to the following conclusions based on your infracted post, your posts here and a review of other threads that you have been involved in.
The question for me is not whether I agree with you or not but as to whether you have breached the site rules in some way. This can be hard to separate sometimes particularly in situations like this.
Your post was crude, insulting and sexist with a sprinkle of victim blaming going on. However, I think the position you took in this case was based on ignorance rather than trolling. This is evident in that you cannot see anything wrong with the post (which is concerning). Ignorance is not against the rules of the site however (or else I would have been banned many times over) so I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt on the trolling point.
What I can't ignore is the crudeness and the victim blaming that are in your post. Here isn't the place for discussion (but there are plenty threads on boards that could open your eyes) but essentially placing the blame at the feet of a victim of domestic violence is not cool by a long way.
On the basis that I don't believe this was an intentional trolling post I am suggesting to reduce the ban down to 'time served' which would allow you to post again today.


Please advise as to whether this is acceptable to you.


Cheers

No, that's fine. I don't necessarily agree with you...but it's not something I feel strongly about and will bear what you say in mind.

Thanks for the time and effort. I appreciate that it must eat up a lot of your free time and certainly didn't mean that to happen. Certainly wasn't trolling...but appreciate - from the reaction - it's not a popular view, so will keep it to myself. Unless there is a thread on the specific issue, where it might be more relevant.

The Hill Billy

Thanks Conor. Will mark this as Resolved.

Pawwed Rig

Thanks Conor