727Goon
9th July 2011, 20:34
I'll admit I was pretty offensive or whatever in my other thread but right now I'm just genuinely looking for some clarification on the rules: What constitutes a "sexist joke"? Are there certain sexual comments we can make about men that aren't acceptable for women? Dumb summed it up better than me in the other thread:
Here's where things get confusing.
Let's say somebody had posted the following:
"Women are crazy with or without the porn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2167203&postcount=4)."
"At least I acknowledge that most women are easily tempted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2167438&postcount=46)."
"What passes for an anti-war movement in my city is old, white, female, lame, ritualistic and small (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1498128&postcount=4)."
"A pre-emptive note to the phoney feminist female chauvinists here... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1141957&postcount=52)"
Any one of these would have been sexist - and yet, none of them were, because the actual posts were about men, not women. Social context accounts for the discrepancy in some of these cases (I've heard right-wingers complain about "female chauvinists" on occasion, for example, and the whole notion is patently ridiculous). Others, though, I'm not so sure.
And that's where things get confusing. There are a whole host of things that are okay to say about men, but aren't okay to say about women. When I read those four comments above in their original form, I had no problem with them as long as they were about men; when I read them now after switching "men" to "women" and "male" to "female," I'm already getting a little sick to my stomach.
While there are some things that are clearly always sexist, IMO (the word "*****," for example), not all things are nearly that clear-cut. There are two principled ways to go about statements like the ones above: "If it's okay to say about a man, it's okay to say about a woman"; "If it's not okay to say about a woman, it's not okay to say about a man." While I'm quite happy to see the clear-cut chauvinists punished the way they have been, some members have also been chastised or disciplined by admins in situations that hardly fall short of placing women on a pedestal.
The problem with the board's policy is that they're treating a vague notion, one with a multitude of definitions, like it's a black-and-white thing. If the board is to do so, then the board needs to provide a black-and-white definition of what it considers to be sexist, and then I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. (For what that's worth). My grievance isn't with the strictness regarding sexism in particular; I take issue, though, because it's generally hard to know in advance what the admin board will consider discipline-worthy. Any declaration on the contrary is pure partisanship, and I hope this point gets taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand.
Here's where things get confusing.
Let's say somebody had posted the following:
"Women are crazy with or without the porn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2167203&postcount=4)."
"At least I acknowledge that most women are easily tempted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2167438&postcount=46)."
"What passes for an anti-war movement in my city is old, white, female, lame, ritualistic and small (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1498128&postcount=4)."
"A pre-emptive note to the phoney feminist female chauvinists here... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1141957&postcount=52)"
Any one of these would have been sexist - and yet, none of them were, because the actual posts were about men, not women. Social context accounts for the discrepancy in some of these cases (I've heard right-wingers complain about "female chauvinists" on occasion, for example, and the whole notion is patently ridiculous). Others, though, I'm not so sure.
And that's where things get confusing. There are a whole host of things that are okay to say about men, but aren't okay to say about women. When I read those four comments above in their original form, I had no problem with them as long as they were about men; when I read them now after switching "men" to "women" and "male" to "female," I'm already getting a little sick to my stomach.
While there are some things that are clearly always sexist, IMO (the word "*****," for example), not all things are nearly that clear-cut. There are two principled ways to go about statements like the ones above: "If it's okay to say about a man, it's okay to say about a woman"; "If it's not okay to say about a woman, it's not okay to say about a man." While I'm quite happy to see the clear-cut chauvinists punished the way they have been, some members have also been chastised or disciplined by admins in situations that hardly fall short of placing women on a pedestal.
The problem with the board's policy is that they're treating a vague notion, one with a multitude of definitions, like it's a black-and-white thing. If the board is to do so, then the board needs to provide a black-and-white definition of what it considers to be sexist, and then I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. (For what that's worth). My grievance isn't with the strictness regarding sexism in particular; I take issue, though, because it's generally hard to know in advance what the admin board will consider discipline-worthy. Any declaration on the contrary is pure partisanship, and I hope this point gets taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand.