Sexism debate, displaced.

I really am not having a difficult time imagining a woman saying the same thing about a man in the same way. The 'she's cute' didn't read in any way as a sort of 'I don't care about her accomplishments, look at them ta-tas!' comment. It seems that the poster went to talk to people who made a game he liked, because he thought they were very talented people, and discovered that on top of all that, one of them was female and he found her physically attractive. Then for some reason he decided to share that with us. The last bit doesn't have much reason behind it, but does that make it offensive?
posted by shakespeherian at 1:45 PM on December 5, 2007

Good luck!

Oh, and IMHO it was a bit weird, and pretty much a self derail since this sort of thing was bound to happen, but in the general spectrum of things sits closer to "iffy" than "full on sexist", so genuine outrage would seem a bit OTT. Those outraged about the outraged seem even more intent on a disproportionate response.
posted by Artw at 1:47 PM on December 5, 2007

Pope Guilty said, and I quote, "That's sexism, and it's fucking disgusting to see it defended. (And even worse to see it defended by pretending I'm saying something I'm not.)"

So, um, apparently to some, it was not only offensive to say that one of the developers was attractive, it was also fucking disgusting.
posted by kbanas at 1:50 PM on December 5, 2007

Quibble: The defence was fucking disgusting.
posted by Artw at 1:51 PM on December 5, 2007

You guys. Derailing a thread to pretend you're dealing with pretend sexism is just about as boyzone as anything. It's not sexist to leer, it's just not something worth sharing, and not up to FPP content standards. GYOB.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:52 PM on December 5, 2007 [8 favorites]

A girlfriend of mine was talking about the Obama campaign the other day, and blurted out that she thought he was "cute". Let's just say we're no longer on speaking terms. I thought that society had made some progress in the past 300 years; I guess I was wrong.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:52 PM on December 5, 2007 [30 favorites]

Leer?

Seriously?
posted by kbanas at 1:53 PM on December 5, 2007

YES FINALLY. I've been dying to use the new sexist flag, but you people have been on your best behavior! This will have to do.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:53 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I thought it was cute.
posted by grumblebee at 1:54 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

It was a weird way for him to end the post but it's not like he wrote, SURPRISE, WTF? or YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS $HIT.
posted by studentbaker at 1:54 PM on December 5, 2007

yay for the new metafilter!
posted by PugAchev at 1:54 PM on December 5, 2007

Text does not convey nuance or tone very well, and that is why fielding user feedback on what constitutes 'offensive' content in areas with VAST amounts of gray area is a bad idea. This is precisely the type of situation and topic that has a tendency to turn anything resembling a democracy into something very much resembling a lynch mob.

This is a perfect example of the can of worms I was worried we'd opened with the new flag.
posted by Ryvar at 1:55 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

(unless it's me, leering at the cute mefite boys in this vicinity)
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2007

I thought it was cute.

Threadist.
posted by never used baby shoes at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

It seems like a lame and pointless addition to the post, but I don't know what we should do about it. It doesn't seem so strong and off-putting that we should delete the whole thread, but moving discussion here and off the thread is a good idea.

Is cutting the sentence from the post the best outcome?
posted by mathowie at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2007

Did you know that I had to actually Google for 2 WHOLE MINUTES to find a decent picture of the developer in question? And that I finally found it on on a MOXY FRUVOUS site?

You bastards.

Seriously: do you see now why so many of us said we often preferred not to derail threads with public callouts? Thanks to all involved for their good intentions and willingness to speak up, but while the comment was a bit callow, it doesn't strike me as a big deal. Although as far as I can see, all the kerfuffle in the original thread involved male MeFites, so that's an interesting data point.
posted by maudlin at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2007

reposting...

</geek crush>

Monday Nights on CBS, "The Big Bang Theory" from the producers of "Two and a Half Men"... which singlehandedly moved the "geek crush" from a personality quirk to sexist behavior. But since you don't own a TV, you might not have been aware of that.
posted by wendell at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2007

Fwiw, I'm in the same camp Falconetti is. Harmless comment, but no place for it in a MeFi thread, and pretty much asking for trouble given recent events.

This final gem from Pope Guilty was interesting though:
"Fuck it, I'm giving up before somebody explains to me how calling a black man "articulate" isn't racist."

Someone complimented me the other day, saying "you're really articulate, y'know." Good thing I'm white, or else I guess I might have to take offense.

Yes, I can see how finding it remarkable that a black person is articulate simply because the person is black is inherently racist, but it saddens me that there are apparently no shades of grey for some people, and that they appear to react to situations without considering context, intent, etc.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2007 [5 favorites]

This is a perfect example of the can of worms I was worried we'd opened with the new flag.

ZOMG, NOT AN OPEN CAN OF WORMS ! RUN FOR IT MARTYYY!
posted by cashman at 1:58 PM on December 5, 2007

Sorry, kbanas, ogle? Whatever. It's not like it's an objective statement, that somone's a cutie.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:58 PM on December 5, 2007

An open can of worms and a plate of beans. Yummy.
posted by never used baby shoes at 1:59 PM on December 5, 2007

Is cutting the sentence from the post the best outcome?

Yes, please, and close this thread pronto, before someone links to the picture and we get into the "I'd hit it/I'd not hit it" debate.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:59 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't think cutting the sentence from the post is the best outcome.

I think the best outcome would be for everyone to chill the fuck out.
posted by kbanas at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2007 [16 favorites]

I think this dog is way-hey! cute and you can't even tell what sex it is so flag that shit.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2007 [9 favorites]

For the record, I don't think it was overtly sexist, it was just completely unnecessary and likely to stir shit up. And once the shit is stirred, you get exasperating people like kbanas going hyper because defending non-sexist things from being labeled sexist is a certain subset of internet denizen's raison d'etre.
posted by Falconetti at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

no no no. keep this thread open.

i've still got time to kill at work.
posted by Stynxno at 2:01 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Which is just to say I think we can handle this discussion. I don't think any of us are going to burn each others houses down. Is it sexist or not - discuss. Really, a can of worms is not all that scary. Makes me want to go fishing, really.

I thought it was borderline. The issue of girls/women in technology fields and being ignored as guys fawn over their looks and right past their skills (and past their less-than-men's paychecks) is a real issue.
posted by cashman at 2:01 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't think we should cut the sentence. Discussion is here for those who want to have it.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:01 PM on December 5, 2007

my feelings wont be hurt if the last line is removed. Its not super important... neither is the fact that the three of them were cool people... or that there is three of them... or that i played it at PAX.

I suppose thats why i put that unimportant stuff in the more information area.....

joking aside, if it settles the shit storm, just nix the sentence. also, what "recent events" ? (genuine curiosity)
posted by nihlton at 2:02 PM on December 5, 2007

kbanas, no U chill the fuckity fuck out lol
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:03 PM on December 5, 2007

Sorry, kbanas, ogle? Whatever. It's not like it's an objective statement, that somone's a cutie.

I just find the use of the verb leer to be sexist. Men seem to always be characterized by leering, and I find something vaguely predatory about that.
posted by kbanas at 2:03 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

And the thread was well on its way to self-correcting when kbanas came in with several comments designed to ridicule the sensibilities of Pope Guilty and others and stir the shit.

kbanas deserves a timeout, not that I expect him to actually learn something from the experience, but it would at least give us a day without his destructive input.
posted by wendell at 2:04 PM on December 5, 2007

nihlton - Recent Events.
posted by cashman at 2:05 PM on December 5, 2007

Yep, annoying and stupid in a FPP.

It would be equally annoying and stupid if the author was slobbering over some guy who was a master of mutual funds AND ALSO TOTALLY HOT BTW.

Link a pic to their name if it's that important.
posted by zebra3 at 2:05 PM on December 5, 2007

What I mean to say is that I find something vaguely predatory about the word leer, I mean. Deviants leer at innocent children. That kind of thing.

God, I've got so much real outrage and sarcastic outrage and general confusion bouncing around inside my head that I don't even fucking know anymore.

I'm taking a break.
posted by kbanas at 2:05 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Wolfdog, I would totally hit that dog.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:06 PM on December 5, 2007

To say what's been said, and what everybody knows:

(1) It was unnecessary, and unprofessional, and probably not a great idea to refer to a public figure as "cute." Especially when said figure has been the object of unfortunate stupidity of unusually dense calibre recently.

(2) Threads are the wrong place for this to happen. Whoever posted this clearly wasn't aware of the stupid comic in question; if they were, well, then, yes, they're utterly sexist, but it doesn't seem like they were.
posted by koeselitz at 2:08 PM on December 5, 2007

I hope everyone buys lotion for the Holidays. All this hand wringing has got to be awful for your skin.
posted by absalom at 2:08 PM on December 5, 2007 [6 favorites]

nihlton, there's also something of a history of mefites posting throw-away comments about the looks of the woman who is the subject of the FFP, which results in endless debates about whether the oh-so-discerning members of the site would deign to "hit it."

Which is tiresome, and it's a pretty predictable derail, so it's usually better to not throw stuff like that in.
posted by iminurmefi at 2:08 PM on December 5, 2007

Okay, sorry to touch a nerve, kbanas. I call it leering, but didn't mean anything judgmental by it. There's just not a better word for the sort of sly and slef-indulgent "ooh check that piece out" thing that I think both sexes do.

Matt, I'd say go ahead and cut it. It's not adding value.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:09 PM on December 5, 2007

On the one hand, I could understand why someone would think this is sexist.

On the other hand, if a woman had made the post and had mentioned that one of the developers was a cute guy, I doubt that anybody would bat an eye.

My suggestion - let it stay. Political correctness has never solved anything.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:10 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

koeselitz, you're aware that the woman nhilton was referring to is not the same woman who worked on Assassins Creed, yes? Because it appears that you are confusing the two.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:10 PM on December 5, 2007

I don't think it was overtly sexist, it was just completely unnecessary and likely to stir shit up.

My sentiments, pretty much.
posted by jessamyn at 2:11 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

That last sentence did irritate me, but it wasn't because it was sexist, but because it was a gratuitous inclusion of some unnecessary random opinion in an FPP. If a woman (or someone of the male-loving sexual orientation) had made the exact same FPP and instead said, "BONUS - the male half of the development team is cute," as much as I love cute males, my response would've been "Oh for crying out loud. GYOFB."

The "I got to play it" sentence tripped the first alarm, since I could care less if the OP thinks it was insanely cool or that the physics feel different. Nothing personally, hell I like video games too, but show it, don't tell it with the FPP. The comment about the cuteness of the development team just sealed it.
posted by kkokkodalk at 2:12 PM on December 5, 2007

cashman - holy shit. thanks for the background.
posted by nihlton at 2:13 PM on December 5, 2007

Why is the OP taunting us with his ellipses? What a sexist.
posted by mullacc at 2:14 PM on December 5, 2007

Also, can we avoid the false equivalence here? I think the problem with these comments that was laid out in the Threads That Never Ended (aka the "mandatory consciousness raising threads," as I hear Jessamyn likes to call them) was pretty clear that even when the comment *itself* was perhaps written with no ill intent, when those comments are made about women in particular, it leads to the mass stupidity of "I'd hit it!" "I'd hit it!" "I'd hit it!" ad nauseum. I don't think I've seen a single thread devolve like that when the subject of a FPP was a man, so it's really not the same.
posted by iminurmefi at 2:14 PM on December 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

CitrusFreak12: koeselitz, you're aware that the woman nhilton was referring to is not the same woman who worked on Assassins Creed, yes? Because it appears that you are confusing the two.

Gah. Ninjas, Assassins, you kids and your games... Sorry.
posted by koeselitz at 2:17 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't think I've seen a single thread devolve like that when the subject of a FPP was a man, so it's really not the same.

That may mean that the comment was a problem (which I'd agree with, given the context of this site), but it certainly doesn't make it sexist.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:18 PM on December 5, 2007

I don't think I've seen a single thread devolve like that when the subject of a FPP was a man, so it's really not the same.

I call slippery slope. If the initial action isn't wrong, but the reaction is wrong, shouldn't the reaction be addressed and not the initial action?

Besides, I think the "what if it was about men" test is actually a pretty good way of diagnosing sexism.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:18 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I see why it sexist. Every man that does anything isn't also judged on his level of attractiveness. No one is going to say "Bob Smith revolutionized the world of microprocessors, and he's totally cute too. lol." So why should women be subject to that? Conversely, viewed in a vacuum, you could say "What now we can't say people are attractive? That's sexist too? That is a compliment! WTF?" And in that person's defense, there is a difference between standing up for yourself and others, and just looking for reasons to get offended.

But at the end of the day, its just kind of dumb. If a woman were to say "Bob Smith revolutionized the world of microprocessors, and he's totally cute too. lol." I wouldn't think that she was sexist. I would just think that she was a moron. Or, that she had said something stupid. Not egregiously stupid, but just pointless. So that is what I think of that comment. Just pointless.
posted by ND¢ at 2:19 PM on December 5, 2007

Put an 'is' in there would you?
posted by ND¢ at 2:20 PM on December 5, 2007

If "she's cute" is the type of thing that the new flag is for, well, what a bunch of bullshit. Was the comment necessary? Probably not. But huge amounts of unneccessary commentary appear in FPPs every day and this was not a particularly egregious example of it.

Wasting energy on this sort of shit means less attention for stuff that is actually meaningfully sexist.

p.s. Yay for Ambrosia Voyeur. Rock on.
posted by Justinian at 2:22 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

The problem is, yes, a woman's worth is ultimately determined by her sexual attractiveness. The problem with challenging the boyzone attitude is that it's the little things that build up. Yes, there are occasional rape/tranny jokes thrown at the likes of Ann Coulter, but overall it's true that it's generally less egregious than that.

The reason this is sexist is because we don't have people tagging on to the more inside of a Dawkins post "I'd hit it!!" and then someone commenting with a link to him in a swim suit saying "DO NOT WANT." Because men aren't valued the same way. Is your deeply rooted sexism ok because it's socialized and generally accepted elsewhere? I'm not sure that I'm the one to make that call. Does it bother me personally? Yes, often. Do I want the offending comment to just disappear? Maybe not. But I do want my vote counted. This instance makes me think this would work better if the flags were visible to everyone. But that's a whole other ball of wax.
posted by SassHat at 2:23 PM on December 5, 2007 [15 favorites]

the "mandatory consciousness raising threads," as I hear Jessamyn likes to call them

I am going to call them the "shove them up your gender-nonspecific patootie" threads if you continue down that twisted path of lies.
posted by jessamyn at 2:23 PM on December 5, 2007 [7 favorites]

Every man that does anything isn't also judged on his level of attractiveness.

You and I live on different planets. Did you miss the flap about John Edwards and his hair? The Obamagirl video?
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on December 5, 2007

I've never heard of Obamagirl, but wasn't the deal about John Edwards' hair relevant only because of the amount of money he spent?
posted by zebra3 at 2:26 PM on December 5, 2007

I'm here, if anyone needs me.
posted by Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus at 2:28 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

Did you know that I had to actually Google for 2 WHOLE MINUTES to find a decent picture of the developer in question? And that I finally found it on on a MOXY FRUVOUS site?

Picture aside, Moxy Fruvous is quite possibly the greatest Canadian band ever.
posted by Pants! at 2:28 PM on December 5, 2007

It's not sexist to say someone is cute, it's sexist that more often it's said about women. That distinction is important. I come off pretty boy-crazy for a lucky-in-love partnered girl, and don't mind talking at length about the magic of Johns Linnell or Darnielle. However, it is silly and self-indulgent to do so, so I try to keep it in check, even though sometimes I think the role of loudmouthed horny women is crucial.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:30 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

And yes, I will say that making a big deal about trivial stuff like this really does detract from the overall struggle against sexism.

And to be honest, I really see very little honest-to-god sexism on MeFi. Most of the stuff that I've found offensive is stuff that would be offensive to any gender.

Case-in-point - any time we have an obesity thread, there's always 1 or 2 guys who take it upon themselves to be the designated "weight asshole." They'll carry on and on and on about how fat women are unattractive, blah blah blah blah blah. And it really just makes me shake my head in disgust. But once again, if they were talking about men in the same way, I would be just as offended.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:31 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

ND¢: No one is going to say "Bob Smith revolutionized the world of microprocessors, and he's totally cute too. lol."

See, I don't get that. I grew up in a house with three women. I'm fairly certain the majority of my friends are women.

Women notice men. Women even find some men to be attractive. Women might even express this attraction out loud. Hell, depending on the person, I might even chime in and agree with them.

But it's just odd to see that some people really think that no woman would say something along the lines of "yeah, he's pretty annoying but he is SO HOT. I'd hit it" or "his face is pretty meh but he's got a cute butt." I can attribute those statements and many more like them to just the girls in my hall.

Anyway. Your daily anecdote from CitrusFreak.

And yes I read your second paragraph negating the sentiments of your previous paragraph.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 2:34 PM on December 5, 2007 [5 favorites]

No, John Edward's looks have been quite the topic of conversation in general.

Can I say that as a forty-nine year old old bat in training I think it's silly to object when someone says someone of the opposite sex is cute. Cuteness does not subtract from brainpower. I wish women would grow some ovaries and own their attractiveness as well as their brains. If men want to act like twits, well, all that means is such men are twits.
posted by konolia at 2:34 PM on December 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

Indeed, but then we've also got the people who, in such threads, like to jump in and post Don't worry ladies, I love curvy women with meat on their bones! which, when you think about it, is just as offensive. I mean come on.
posted by Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus at 2:36 PM on December 5, 2007

You and I live on different planets. Did you miss the flap about John Edwards and his hair? The Obamagirl video

I actually get more annoyed at comments by people that overreach when defending something as not sexist, then an actual sexist comment.
posted by Falconetti at 2:37 PM on December 5, 2007

Can we all agree that mentioning women is sexist and offensive?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:37 PM on December 5, 2007 [5 favorites]

I will say that making a big deal about trivial stuff like this really does detract from the overall struggle against sexism.

The whole issue, however, is that the overall struggle against sexism is built out of little struggles where people think about the small stuff. It's not just that once we get to the point where women are paid the same for equal work (they're still not) we're somehow done; it's that whenever there's a thread like this one, with a sort of not-totally-thought-out-but-not-intentionally-sexist remark, women on the site (or anyone really) don't have to worry "oh shit, is this going to turn into one of those 'I'd hit it' fiascos?"

In the meantime, we can have discussions like this, where we hammer it out some more. Trying ot be proactive about this stuff means sometimes calling it out or discussing it or whatever before it's turned into a point-of-no-return problem. Anyone that doesn't want to talk about it pretty much doesn't have to.
posted by jessamyn at 2:39 PM on December 5, 2007 [8 favorites]

CitrusFreak, I think a huge difference is that women don't generally think that any and every public space is an appropriate place to comment--at LENGTH--about whether they're attracted to some random guy, and what they like or don't like about his body.

Many guys don't think that either, obviously, but there's this small contingent that think no matter what the subject, no matter who is around, no matter what everyone else is talking about... the most important thing is whether the person in question is pretty enough to have sex with. THAT'S the sexist part, in my view--the assumption that the most pivotal comment that you can make about a woman, so pivotal that it's appropriate no matter what forum you are in or what else is being discussed, it's appropriate to start a derail into that territory.

Is there a little bit of that in the original post? Eh, maybe--I can kind of see it both ways. However, it's a problem in that it's been demonstrated to lead to stupid boyzone conversations all about whether she's REALLY cute, or whether women with bigger boobs are cuter, and whether mefite X would hit it.

I have never seen an otherwise on-topic thread here about a man derailed into a conversation about whether he's hot enough to screw. That's the sexism.
posted by iminurmefi at 2:41 PM on December 5, 2007 [15 favorites]

Mentioning women or men is sexist and offensive if you're quantifying their sex appeal--or the lack thereof.
posted by Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus at 2:42 PM on December 5, 2007

Bets on possible flameouts can be sent to me via MeMail.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:42 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

If men want to act like twits, well, all that means is such men are twits.

Those twits being free to act twitty will result in women being objectified by men who feel it's okay to do that as well as pay them less than men. It goes hand-in-hand, in my opinion. "I wish Black people would just own their intelligence and let the racists be racists." You know, based on who is in positions of power in many places, that's not really going to work out so well.
posted by cashman at 2:46 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Tempest in a teapot.

If I made a post about corn, and said I thought corn on the cob was delicious, would that make me a foodist?

Untighten your sphincters.
posted by Dave Faris at 2:47 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Mentioning women or men is sexist and offensive if you're quantifying their sex appeal--or the lack thereof.

Wait really? The exact same behavior towards all people is prejudiced? Maybe it's shallow and stupid, but sexist?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:49 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Your simultaneous mention of corn and sphincters is highly offensive. Flagged.
posted by Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus at 2:49 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Cashman, I save my indignation for real twittiness. Go over to edodo.org for awhile, peruse the comments, and then you might have some perspective.
posted by konolia at 2:49 PM on December 5, 2007

Besides, I think the "what if it was about men" test is actually a pretty good way of diagnosing sexism.

Yep. Am I really the only guy who wouldn't be offended in any way if an FPP, posted by someone who found men attractive, mentioned offhand that a specific man was attractive?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2007

It was a stupid addition to the post and should be excised, as should all the comments referring to it in-thread.

Now that I've resolved this call-out, I'm off to Annapolis to resolve the middle east peace process.
posted by empath at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2007

Can we all agree that mentioning women is sexist and offensive?

We can all agree that mentioning women when it has nothing at all to do with your post is sexist and offensive.
posted by tkolar at 2:51 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I see your point, Jess. However, I do think there needs to be a cut-off somewhere - some point where you say, "this is just too small a thing to worry about." Like everything else in life, it's all about choosing your battles.

But obviously people want to talk about this, otherwise none of us would be here. I wouldn't advocate closing the thread or anything like that.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:51 PM on December 5, 2007

It would be equally annoying and stupid if the author was slobbering over some guy who was a master of mutual funds AND ALSO TOTALLY HOT BTW.

And we'd think the poster was juvenile and that would be the end of it. It would be something about the poster, not about SOCIETY.
posted by dreamsign at 2:51 PM on December 5, 2007

Btw, it's especially weird and stalkery because there doesn't seem to be any pictures of said developers at any of the links?
posted by empath at 2:52 PM on December 5, 2007

I have never seen an otherwise on-topic thread here about a man derailed into a conversation about whether he's hot enough to screw. That's the sexism.

Wouldn't the sexism come into play if they were not allowed to? Go right ahead, neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 2:52 PM on December 5, 2007

Well, what's wrong with being sexy?
posted by ColdChef at 2:53 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

The whole issue, however, is that the overall struggle against sexism is built out of little struggles where people think about the small stuff.

But in the super mega thread about the new flagging option you repeatedly stated that this wasn't about a huge change, it was about trying to rein in the worst excesses and rapist-humor stuff. Now we're talking about some dude including that he thought a girl was cute.

One of these things is not like the other, and you pointedly stated - repeatedly - that you didn't see Metafilter moving suddenly and rapidly in a new direction.

Jessamyn wrote: We'd like this to be a bit of a wake-up call that some of the more egregious racist/sexist stuff that crops up in MeFi
...
One of the failure modes is that some threads become so vicious and I-fucked-your-mom nasty that a lot of people don't want to participate in them anymore.
...
Are really overt sexist, racist and homophobic commentary okay, not okay but tolerated, celebrated, or somewhere in-between?
...
This does NOT mean that every comment that is seen as sexist by anyone goes away.
...
To restate we are NOT moving to heavier moderation.
...

And so on.

How in heck is talking about removing a comment by a guy that he thought somebody was cute not in direct conflict with everything stated in the thread that kicked off this whole shebang?
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on December 5, 2007 [20 favorites]

The remark itself is relatively harmless, it's just poor fpp form, imo, and it's a self-derail, because as soon as you say that, that's what the fpp is about.
posted by empath at 2:55 PM on December 5, 2007

konolia, I'm just saying I didn't agree with the idea that you can just let it all go and not say anything and just try to be ovaries-to-the-wall awesome. I already said I thought this comment was borderline. But I think just letting it all go and trying to do what you said is not really going to eliminate sexism. If it's you voicing frustration at a seemingly neverending stream of it (as evidenced by you pointing me to someplace where it's rampant), I understand. It does get tough to continually fight this stuff. And that is the precise discussion we've been having in those 1000+ comment threads.
posted by cashman at 2:55 PM on December 5, 2007

First they came for my sexism. Then they came for my dwarf-tossing. Then they came for my homina homina hominas.
posted by WCityMike at 2:56 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm just saying I didn't agree with the idea that you can just let it all go and not say anything and just try to be ovaries-to-the-wall awesome.

Excuse me. "Gonads to the wall" is the preferred nomenclature.
posted by Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus at 2:57 PM on December 5, 2007

Dreamsign, there's no need to yell at me; that was exactly my point. A bunch of people here are conflating people's reaction to that FPP and the whole sexism/flagging issue, and damning both in one fell swipe. But there really wasn't any grumbling about society in this particular thread until the naysayers came in and people felt the need to defend themselves.

For the record, I really worry that this thread is going to end up being a step backwards for exactly that reason.
posted by zebra3 at 2:59 PM on December 5, 2007

I do think there needs to be a cut-off somewhere - some point where you say, "this is just too small a thing to worry about." Like everything else in life, it's all about choosing your battles.

Totally agreed. And as I said I think this falls into the "mildly annoying" category more than the "OMG Sexist" category for me personally, but I'm interested to know why people feel otherwise. Also, understanding that part of the issue with sexism generally and historically is that the concerns of women have often been downplayed, swept under the carpet or downright ignored.

So, for me, when I get to the point where I'm thinking about blowing off something like this (or similar issues concerning classism, racism, whatever) because it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, I'm just always curious (because people fascinate me) of why it seems to be a big deal to other people. It may be that they're all crazy or whatever, but often there's something to be learned by listening, even if you don't agree.

Far be it from me to point at anyone here and say "you're part of the problem!" Invasion of the Body Snatchers style, but I also think there's no harm done in just seeing why people might think it's a big deal. The counterargument is that it's damaging to the community we have here to even have these discussions and I guess I'm not seeing that but someone could try to make that argument certainly.
posted by jessamyn at 3:00 PM on December 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

Also, I think that we should try and make a distinction between obnoxiousness and actual sexism.

For example, I would put the "I'd hit it" comments on the same level as "First post!" comments. Neither one is particularly offensive, but both are seriously annoying. A preponderance of either one would make me less likely to spend time on a given website.

In fact, I would say that one of the reasons that I read MeFi is because the admins and community do such a good job of keeping the site free of such obnoxiousness.

To my mind, for something to be sexist, it has to actually be saying something derogatory about the half of the human race that are women.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:01 PM on December 5, 2007

nihlton: cashman - holy shit. thanks for the background.

Man, that's gotta suck. You get called out for something on MeFi. You don't know about some recent kerfluffle. And then, when you get linked to it, it turns out to be 2 threads with a total of 2167 comments.

Ambrosia Voyeur writes "It's not sexist to say someone is cute, it's sexist that more often it's said about women."

Thank you thank you thank you for saying this. Everybody (myself included) tends to think of it on one side or the other: saying someone is cute IS sexist, or IS NOT sexist. And there's never good resolution. But your comment sums it up perfectly.

Personally, I think the resolution is fine: nihlton said something which I personally don't think is sexist, but is part of a pattern of sexism. It's also the kind of comment that might incite some bad shit down the thread. nihlton realized this, and said "yeah, go ahead and axe that last sentence". So all is good in the world.
posted by bugbread at 3:01 PM on December 5, 2007

I don't think it was overtly sexist, it was just completely unnecessary and likely to stir shit up.

Exactly. I get to chime in, since I made the second comment in the thread - and the second to criticize the poster's editorializing. Anyone who's even half-read Metafilter with one eye shut in the past few weeks should know better than to include a statement like that. Pay attention and don't get called out. Jeeeesus.
posted by Item at 3:02 PM on December 5, 2007

Now that that is settled . . . we aren't supposed to say we fucked each other's mothers anymore? WTF? Political correctness run amok!
posted by ND¢ at 3:04 PM on December 5, 2007

everything in here sounds reasonable, except the "stalkery" part. I didn't hunt down pictures of her and that seems weird? Wouldn't it be more weird if I had?
posted by nihlton at 3:04 PM on December 5, 2007

This is why I'm glad I'm not cute. I was cute when I was younger, and its all people would talk about. I uglied up a bit, and now am taken much more seriously in my professional endeavors.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:05 PM on December 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

I'd not hit it.
posted by ND¢ at 3:09 PM on December 5, 2007

This is why I'm glad I'm not cute. I was cute when I was younger, and its all people would talk about. I uglied up a bit, and now am taken much more seriously in my professional endeavors.

Just like Michael K. Brandow.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:14 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

iminurmefi writes "THAT'S the sexist part, in my view--the assumption that the most pivotal comment that you can make about a woman, so pivotal that it's appropriate no matter what forum you are in or what else is being discussed, it's appropriate to start a derail into that territory."

I'd agree in cases where people are talking about how someone isn't really attractive, but isn't really unattractive. Just kinda average. In that case, even though their looks aren't particularly distinctive, they're still being considered the most important thing about the person. However, if the person is smoking hot, or incredibly ugly, or insanely tall, or super short, or has six fingers on each hand, or dropped out of elementary school and only knows the ABCs up to "B", or got a Nobel prize for developing the unified theory, or the like, I don't see a problem. It's just pointing out an off-topic but extreme aspect of the person. The fact that this happens so often with women is a problem, but that isn't the same as each individual case therefore being a problem. The sum is greater than its parts.

That said, it's still a bad idea to put in a post, because it doesn't contribute anything (which is fine, lots of stuff is non-contributory) but serves as a lightning rod to attract actual sexist comments (and the combination of non-contributory and lightning-rod is a bad idea).
posted by bugbread at 3:14 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

everything in here sounds reasonable, except the "stalkery" part. I didn't hunt down pictures of her and that seems weird? Wouldn't it be more weird if I had?

nihlton, I don't really agree with the "stalkery" bit—seems a bit silly, more of a rhetorical flourish than an actual accusation regardless—but I think the main argument was that the lack of obviously available pictures in the links you provided suggested you had done ancillary (uncited) research into the Department of Good Looks on the female dev. That'd be the "stalking", I guess?

But again: I'm not taking that line very seriously, so hey.
posted by cortex at 3:16 PM on December 5, 2007

I keep thinking that any minute Quonsar is going to walk into this thread with his cock out.
posted by chlorus at 3:17 PM on December 5, 2007

I found it annoying enough to flag. It wasn't so much the "cute" as the egregious all caps "BONUS" that bothered me. It was a stamp of boyzone - the poster, standing, hand up, waiting for the high-fives from his bros. Maybe it wasn't the worst thing ever, but that doesn't make it ok or desirable.
posted by donnagirl at 3:17 PM on December 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

Fortunately, quonsar's cock has been disabled.
posted by Item at 3:19 PM on December 5, 2007

item writes "Anyone who's even half-read Metafilter with one eye shut in the past few weeks should know better than to include a statement like that. Pay attention and don't get called out. Jeeeesus."

You mean anyone who's read MetaTalk. It's very easy to read tons of MetaFilter and not know about that subject, if they don't read MetaTalk as well.

nihlton writes "everything in here sounds reasonable, except the 'stalkery' part. I didn't hunt down pictures of her and that seems weird? Wouldn't it be more weird if I had?"

I think empath missed the fact that you actually met the devs in person.

1) If person A has met person B in person, and says person B is cute, that's not weird.
2) If person A hasn't met person B in person, but person B's picture is prominently on their company's website, and person A says person B is cute, that's not weird.
3) If person A has never met person B in person, and person B's picture isn't anywhere on any of the linked websites, but person A says person B is cute, it sounds stalkery ("How the hell would you even know? Her picture isn't on there anywhere? Are you stalking her?").

So if empath didn't grok that your situation was 1, and saw that there were no pictures, ruling out 2, he/she might have come to conclusion 3.
posted by bugbread at 3:20 PM on December 5, 2007

donnagirl writes "It wasn't so much the 'cute' as the egregious all caps 'BONUS' that bothered me. It was a stamp of boyzone - the poster, standing, hand up, waiting for the high-fives from his bros."

Really? Seemed more like a geek-crush thing to me, than a frat-boy thing.
posted by bugbread at 3:21 PM on December 5, 2007

Seemed more like a geek-crush thing to me, than a frat-boy thing.

"But I can't be sexist! I'm a nerd!"
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:26 PM on December 5, 2007 [12 favorites]

For everybody cracking out with the "would anybody be mad if they said it about a man?" you need to make the real comparison. How would you feel about the poster if the [more inside] was "And half these programmers make more than 100,000 a year, and they're single! Geek Crush!"?

Because no, it's not particularly offensive to note that a man is attractive, because aside from modelling and acting, men have never been hired, fired, or marginalized because of their looks or lackthereof. On the other hand, they do often feel like the only thing that matters is their ability to pull down a paycheck.

Judging a man by his bank balance? Sexist. Judging a professional woman by her looks? Sexist.
posted by headspace at 3:29 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Gee, I thought the OP was a woman at first. I was blind to the blatant sexism until I came here.

Thanks, MetaTalk. I can see clearly now.
posted by breezeway at 3:30 PM on December 5, 2007

So Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus done got banned already, eh?
posted by boo_radley at 3:31 PM on December 5, 2007

These threads are always fascinating to me for what they show about the commenters. Some people genuinely don't get it, and bring up parallels to saying men are cute as if the discussion had never come up before; these people can be annoying if they get too stubborn about it, but they're not sexist assholes. The original poster, nihlton, clearly falls into this category, as does the commenter in the MeFi thread who said:

honestly, is it sexist to say that you have a crush on a cute female?

To answer that by summarizing a couple of thousand-comment MeTa threads and a couple of centuries of feminist thought: no, it's not sexist to say you have a crush on a cute female if you're hanging out with your pals talking about your crushes. It is, however, sexist to toss it into a post about something else entirely. Not sexist in the "OMG you're evil and you're going right into the FemGulag" sense, but in the "You're just reflecting the sexist society you live in" sense. It's understandable to get defensive when called on it, but a little thought (supplemented by reading enough of those threads to realize how many women feel about it) should convince you that the momentary thrill of publicly sharing your crush is not really worth the sinking feeling you cause in much of your audience: "Oh Christ, can't we for once have a discussion about a group that includes a female without having to hear about how cute/uncute she is?"

Guys who practice the ancient art of what's known in Buenos Aires as piropo ("Baby, if being beautiful were a crime you'd be serving a life sentence!") always say "What's wrong with telling someone she's pretty? It's a compliment!" Yeah, but she doesn't want to hear it every fucking time she dares to take a walk in public. There she is, thinking about how nice the weather is and looking forward to a concert that evening and wondering whether... and it's all suddenly disrupted by some guy hollering unwanted compliments at her, and she forgets about the nice weather and whatever else she was thinking about and hunches over and just tries to get where she was going as fast as possible without attracting any more attention. No, not every woman reacts like that, but a lot do, a lot more than most guys think, and it just seems like the right thing to do to try and make the world a little more livable for women by cutting that shit right out.

There's nothing wrong with thinking "Man, she's cute!" I do it all the time. But there is something wrong with posting it in irrelevant contexts. Is that really so hard to understand?

Oh, and Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus, your shtick has already worn out its welcome. If you went away or changed your stupid moniker, I wouldn't grieve a bit.
posted by languagehat at 3:31 PM on December 5, 2007 [36 favorites]

This is silly. Really.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:31 PM on December 5, 2007

... aside from modelling and acting, men have never been hired, fired, or marginalized because of their looks or lackthereof.

Charisma (in which looks play a part) is definitely a factor in a lot of employment situations.

I feel like I'm derailing, but this is kind of the point of the thread. Weird.
posted by ODiV at 3:32 PM on December 5, 2007

So Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus done got banned already, eh?

Quit of his own accord, I believe.
posted by jessamyn at 3:32 PM on December 5, 2007

So Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus done got banned already, eh?

Pressed the Big Red Button, actually.
posted by cortex at 3:33 PM on December 5, 2007

So Gentlemen, I Sure Do Love Analingus done got banned already, eh?

Huh—so it would appear. Well, something good came out of this thread!
posted by languagehat at 3:34 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

ThePinkSuperhero writes "'But I can't be sexist! I'm a nerd!'"

That's not what I meant. I just meant "I can't be a frat boy, I'm a geek!", nothing more nothing less. Not every statement is infinitely ripe with sublayers.
posted by bugbread at 3:34 PM on December 5, 2007

How would you feel about the poster if the [more inside] was "And half these programmers make more than 100,000 a year, and they're single! Geek Crush!"?

I would actually think about it the same way. Not sexist. Just mildly annoying.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:34 PM on December 5, 2007

Dave Faris wrote...
If I made a post about corn, and said I thought corn on the cob was delicious, would that make me a foodist?

No, but if you made a post about corn and ended it with a non-sequitur about the GTO you saw parked near the market, we'd all think that you were inappropriately obsessed with cars and be saying "WTF was that about?"

And if a lot of people started doing the same thing: tossing in references to cars no matter what the topic at hand was, eventually a lot of other people would get sick of it and either leave the site or try to get you to make it so that every frigging thread on metafilter didn't have random comments about cars spread through it.

I realize extended analogy is risky, but try to work with that as you puzzle out why people are annoyed by these random "oh, and also she was cute" incidents.
posted by tkolar at 3:37 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wonder: Would this discussion exist if he'd made that the first comment on his post instead of part of the FPP? To my mind, the greatest sin here is not the sexism/objectification angle (from which I just removed my scare quotes), but the simple fact that we ought to hold what we post on the front page to some sort of higher standard than Digg-like tackiness.
posted by absalom at 3:41 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

That's not what I meant. I just meant "I can't be a frat boy, I'm a geek!", nothing more nothing less.

"Frat boy" and "geek" aren't mutually exclusive (and I find it stupid for adults for define themselves in high school terms, anyway. Grow up! High school is over. Unless it's not, in which case you could probably still stand to grow up). Not to mention that we weren't talking about you- we're talking about something someone said that was annoying/offensive. I don't care how anyone defines themselves when we're talking about what they said- I only care about the words. Saying, oh, but I'm just a geek- so what? Has nothing to do with the conversation.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:41 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

You know, I was writing a response to languagehat, and I realized:

I have no idea what "sexism" actually means. "misogyny" and "misandry", I know. "racism", "anti-semitism", etc., I know. But sexism? It isn't the belief that women are inferior, because some people are saying that this comment is sexist, even though there's nothing in this comment that insults women. And it isn't a matter of intentionally creating an intimidating atmosphere, because, as nihlton has said, he didn't know it would be taken the way it was, and thinks it would be best deleted. Wolf-whistling women is something sexist, and I know that, but I just realized I don't actually know any of the what/how/whys of sexism.

So, stupid stupid question here, but: what does "sexism" mean?
posted by bugbread at 3:44 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, what's wrong with being sexy?
posted by ColdChef

"Oh sexist. You know there's a fine line between brilliant and stupid."
<>
posted by nola at 3:44 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I can't believe the new sexy flag didn't solve this.
posted by justgary at 3:47 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I wonder: Would this discussion exist if he'd made that the first comment on his post instead of part of the FPP?

I'd guess no, because as a separate comment it would have been flagged to hell and removed before this conversation could get going.
posted by tkolar at 3:48 PM on December 5, 2007

ThePinkSuperhero writes "'Frat boy' and 'geek' aren't mutually exclusive (and I find it stupid for adults for define themselves in high school terms, anyway. Grow up! High school is over. Unless it's not, in which case you could probably still stand to grow up). Not to mention that we weren't talking about you- we're talking about something someone said that was annoying/offensive. I don't care how anyone defines themselves when we're talking about what they said- I only care about the words. Saying, oh, but I'm just a geek- so what? Has nothing to do with the conversation."

Uh, I'm not the one using the frat-boy stereotype, donnagirl is. Agreed, she should probably grow up and skip all the "waiting for high-fives from his bros" fratboy stuff. I have no idea what characterizing the words as being stereotypical fratboy-like contributes to the conversation either. I probably shouldn't have run with donnagirl's derail.
posted by bugbread at 3:51 PM on December 5, 2007

My guess, also, would be no, even without any flagging or removal, which I doubt it would have got.

Weirdly if the rest of the text had been above the fold and that had been the "more inside" I can't see it having caused as much of a stir as well, though it's a little hard to put my finger on exactly why.
posted by Artw at 3:52 PM on December 5, 2007

Also, ThePinkSuperhero, if it helps with context, I'm coming here from this thread. So you might see why the term "geek" was on the tip of my mind. Plus wendell using it up above (but, for some reason, not getting reamed for it).

And, on further reflection: frat boy isn't a high school term. It's a college term. And geek? That term goes from childhood to death. So I don't see what high-school has to do with the conversation either. Aren't we supposed to be talking about something someone said that was annoying/offensive?
posted by bugbread at 3:55 PM on December 5, 2007

To my mind, the greatest sin here is not the sexism/objectification angle (from which I just removed my scare quotes), but the simple fact that we ought to hold what we post on the front page to some sort of higher standard than Digg-like tackiness.

Good point. Very good point. So far, the best reason given in this thread for excising the offending sentence.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:56 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I don't think I've read one post about Dennis Kucinich and his wife that didn't mention how ugly he is and how beautiful she is.
posted by Sailormom at 4:00 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Good point. Very good point. So far, the best reason given in this thread for excising the offending sentence.

Seconded. It convinced me.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:01 PM on December 5, 2007

Sailormom writes "I don't think I've read one post about Dennis Kucinich and his wife that didn't mention how ugly he is and how beautiful she is."

Any post about Lemmy from Motorhead contains comments about how ugly he is too.
posted by bugbread at 4:02 PM on December 5, 2007

mathowie said "Is cutting the sentence from the post the best outcome?".

I'd prefer if an entire FPP was deleted rather than the mods just started editing posts without the posters permission. That's just creepy.
I realise that nihlton said he didn't mind the post being cut but that was after it was suggested.
posted by oh pollo! at 4:06 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Because no, it's not particularly offensive to note that a man is attractive, because aside from modelling and acting, men have never been hired, fired, or marginalized because of their looks or lackthereof

This is patently false. They are simply marginalized based on different looks. Height, for example, is associated with success. Taller men are promoted faster and paid more than shorter men when controlling for other factors.
posted by Justinian at 4:16 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

mathowie said "Is cutting the sentence from the post the best outcome?"

No, it's a terrible outcome. That sort of moderation is exactly what we were promised wouldn't happen with the introduction of the new flag.
posted by Justinian at 4:18 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I can't be a literal viking! I'm just in Ralph's dream!
posted by Kwine at 4:18 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I should point out that I think the comment in question was inane and shouldn't have been in the post. I'm simply arguing against heavy handed moderation.
posted by Justinian at 4:20 PM on December 5, 2007

The world will be sooooo much a better place once language has been redesigned to make it impossible to express consciousness of any distinction within, without and amongst species whatsoever, thus rendering such heinous thoughtcrime unthinkable.
posted by chlorus at 4:25 PM on December 5, 2007

Justinian writes "No, it's a terrible outcome. That sort of moderation is exactly what we were promised wouldn't happen with the introduction of the new flag."

Er, well, the actual poster has given his ok, so it's not really what we were promised wouldn't happen.

headspace writes "men have never been hired, fired, or marginalized because of their looks or lackthereof."

Haven't most US Presidents been above average height?
posted by bugbread at 4:27 PM on December 5, 2007

This is why we can't have cute things.
posted by found missing at 4:28 PM on December 5, 2007 [9 favorites]

A lot of people think that Kennedy won the 1960 election because he looked hot in the televised debates and Nixon looked like a ghoul.
posted by Kwine at 4:33 PM on December 5, 2007

To my mind, the greatest sin here is not the sexism/objectification angle (from which I just removed my scare quotes), but the simple fact that we ought to hold what we post on the front page to some sort of higher standard than Digg-like tackiness.

I agree with this general notion, absolutely.

As far as nixing the sentence, it's not something I'd prefer to do, and in this case I'm thinking it's not a great plan especially since so much of the conversation is tied to it at this point. It was kind of a foolish thing to tag onto the end of the post, but this isn't a case where there's egregious harm, so retconning it away seems not so much prescribed.

As far as the question of editing posts in general, I'll summarize what's been said previous times the concept has come up: it's not something we like to do, and it's not something we even do, in general, except for very unusual situations and even then we try to sanity-check a proposed edit with the poster.

That said, if there's sufficient problem with an isolated piece of an otherwise valid post/content that we think it's a situation that might benefit from a rare edit rather than outright deletion, we'll pretty much put it to the poster as a one-or-the-other option. If they're not cool with an edit, we can nix it.

My personal feeling is that this isn't a situation that really hits that level of problem—that the ruckus the line raised (driven by recent context) is the issue and that the line itself is mild if obviously not something to praise or promote; and if there hadn't been a fuss there wouldn't be anything self-evidently exceptional about the line to merit even discussing removing it.

I feel like Jessamyn and I have both been really heavily in the trenches the last few times the editing question has come up, and Matt not so much, and so I really read his proposal about the edit not so much as a "hey, let's change policy because Everything Is Different" suggestion (with respects to what Justinian has been getting at) as rather a polling-for-thoughts reaction to the discussion in this thread.

What jessamyn said upthread struck me as spot-on; this isn't some big change, this is a discussion. The big change would be unapologetically axing even slightly offensive things, and that has absolutely not happened.
posted by cortex at 4:38 PM on December 5, 2007

To my mind, for something to be sexist, it has to actually be saying something derogatory about the half of the human race that are women.

If you can't spot what's wrong with that statement, there's not much I can do to help you.
posted by dreamsign at 4:38 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

I guess this post is sexist, then? I mean, it focuses on the HAWTNESS of Mrs. Kucinich and her OMG THE TONGUE RING.

Jesus.

Grow the fuck up.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:39 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

"men have never been hired, fired, or marginalized because of their looks or lackthereof."

That's kind of a ludicrous generalization, isn't it? How could you possibly know? All sorts of people are marginalized for their appearance.
posted by oneirodynia at 4:39 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I would take a stand here, but I'm a bit too distracted by how wicked cute y'all are. Squeeee! *waves*
posted by miss lynnster at 4:40 PM on December 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

"I think this falls into the 'mildly annoying' category more than the 'OMG Sexist' category for me personally, but I'm interested to know why people feel otherwise."

The call of the loon is loudest of all birds.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:45 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

The outrage over such an innocent comment is exactly why feminists are often thought of as humorless, manhating, uptight bitches.

Seriously, you're getting upset because a guy commented about a woman being cute?! IT'S A COMPLIMENT. There's so many other devastating cases of sexism and you want to get hung up on this? That's just sad and probably winds up hurting the cause more than helping it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:49 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I suspect the perjorative label "sexist" is going to be applied with reckless abandon by users in dire need of a Venn diagram illustrating "sexist" as a subset of sexual communication, not a superset.

Unfortunately, these nitwits are going to cause a lot of disruption in MeFi over the next while. Hypersensitive and with a burning desire to Do The Right Thing, they're going to be viewing every message as suspect and making snap judgements on next to no proof.

What fun. Can of worms? No, it's a barrel of poisonous snakes.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on December 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

It is the kind of thing you say in casual conversation, not in a post highlighting a development team and their games.

This is interesting (seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative). I (and probably lots of others) always saw MeFi as a more or less casual conversation. Others, I guess not so much. This may be at the root of a lot of misunderstandings around here.
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on December 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

At least Dennis J. Kucinich has a hot wife. amirite?
posted by seanyboy at 4:51 PM on December 5, 2007

... aside from modelling and acting, men have never been hired, fired, or marginalized because of their looks or lackthereof.

IN THE 21st century, the battle for equality is no longer simply between the sexes - it is now a fight between the beautiful and the ugly, the fatties versus the skinnies, and the tall against the short. "If you're cute, or maybe you're beautiful, there's MORE OF US UGLY MOTHERFUCKERS OUT THERE THAN YOU ARE!! So watch out." - FZ

(Still, Women suffer the biggest wage penalty in clerical and secretarial jobs if they are small and fat).
posted by ersatz at 4:51 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

(unless it's me, leering at the cute mefite boys in this vicinity)

It's a website. Just how cute could any of us be?
posted by jonmc at 4:52 PM on December 5, 2007

Oh no. Not again.
posted by klangklangston at 4:57 PM on December 5, 2007

"The outrage over such an innocent comment is exactly why feminists are often thought of as humorless, manhating, uptight bitches."

And that response to a legitimate objection is exactly why many men are often thought of as moronic, sexist and retarded assholes.
posted by klangklangston at 4:58 PM on December 5, 2007 [22 favorites]

May I just point out -- once again -- that the first outcry in the MeFi thread was from men? And that several of the people in this thread who think that the comment was something mildly out of line but that it should be discouraged for a variety of good reasons (aiming to do better than Digg; avoiding a flurry of "I'd hit it") are also men?

I didn't think it was a big deal, but I don't think that people objecting to it are shrill, hysterical, self-hating, etc. Right now, we're talking, tweaking and calibrating. I don't see the need to rend garments and get all histrionic.
posted by maudlin at 5:07 PM on December 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I am sort of tired of people explaining that SOME PEOPLE, BUT NOT ME, think of feminists as humorless, manhating, and uptight.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 5:08 PM on December 5, 2007 [12 favorites]

Editorializing in a fpp is always dangerous, many posts are derailed for that reason alone, and while it happens a lot, it is also a frequent reason for callouts and deletions. Citing this woman as totally cute was irrelevant editorializing and a built in derail. It opens the door to a discussion of her cuteness rather than the game, and then we know how the cuteness factor debates usually go.

In a perfect world (mine, anyway), if that statement got made, someone - perhaps a female, perhaps a male - would note that it has no relevance and the thread would continue on apace. A slight verbal swat, and then move on. I would rather not see it deleted because it is hardly egregious, and I favor less not more deletions.

I didn't find it sexist, perhaps mildly annoying. But what I do dislike is that it was a launching pad for the type of "I'd hit it/cute/not" derail that I do often find annoying and/or offensive. OK, so it did not derail in that direction - but clearly, it was ill-advised to make the comment because it has been a major derail.

And this particular comment at this particular point and time in space is highly charged, likely beyond its merit, because of recent history: the recent geek girl thread focusing on looks and not on merit which many women found offensive, and the recent discussions about sexism on metatalk. Many found the discussions on those threads satisfying, finally having a place to discuss some important issues. Others found the discussions threatening or annoying. Most on both sides expressed a disinclination to see changes that would go far beyond what Jess is quoted on above.

Discussions like this one are going to be inevitable for a bit because metalk thread participants agreed to call out sexism when they see it. But not everyone is going to see eye to eye about where that line is. Sorting that out may be a process and this probably won't be the only discussion, but hopefully things will settle down without major changes beyond a heightened level of sensitivity to some of the things that have been driving lots of women away from the site.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:13 PM on December 5, 2007 [13 favorites]

To respond to language hat's comment:

"What's wrong with telling someone she's pretty? It's a compliment!" Yeah, but she doesn't want to hear it every fucking time she dares to take a walk in public. There she is, thinking about how nice the weather is and looking forward to a concert that evening and wondering whether... and it's all suddenly disrupted by some guy hollering unwanted compliments at her, and she forgets about the nice weather and whatever else she was thinking about and hunches over and just tries to get where she was going as fast as possible without attracting any more attention. No, not every woman reacts like that, but a lot do, a lot more than most guys think, and it just seems like the right thing to do to try and make the world a little more livable for women by cutting that shit right out

OH HELL YES.

I get irritated everytime I go out in public and get honked at (by guys in cars, not guys randomly carrying horns - which would be kind of weird), whistled at, blatantly stared at, and especially when I get the ubiquitous: "Hey sugar. How you doin'?"

My boyfriend does not understand why this bugs me. He thinks that I should be flattered as an attractive and fashionable woman that men want to compliment me. No. I am not flattered. I want them all to shut up. I dress nicely to make myself happy, not to show off to some imaginary audience. I especially do not like to think of myself as some display of femininity to the greater male population. Shattering my own little personal bubble by calling attention to my attractiveness is annoying at best and downright offensive at worst.

The act itself is not sexist, but what is reflective of the general sexism in society is the attitude of "Well, what's wrong with telling her she's pretty?" What's wrong with it is that no one asked you. What's wrong is that no one stops women in the street to tell them how smart they are. What's wrong is the male gaze is being commodified and women reduced to objects.

What's wrong is I've read too much Judith Butler.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:17 PM on December 5, 2007 [18 favorites]

As an aside, to madamjujujive:

[S]ome of the things that have been driving lots of women away from the site.

Oddly enough, I'm gathering that these conversations are what sparked miss lynnster to email me which is what brought me back to the site. Sorry to hear that other ladies have been leaving! Must fight the patriarchy!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:20 PM on December 5, 2007

I don't think it was overtly sexist, it was just completely unnecessary and likely to stir shit up.

I agree with the first two points, but you lost me with that last one.

Some people need to chill the fuck out.
posted by zardoz at 5:23 PM on December 5, 2007

Oh: In the interest of full disclosure, I also think that this entire thread is the classic navel-gazing, mastubatory, hypersensitive, tempest in a teapot that MeTa appears to thrive on. I mean, on every side of the fence.

And, for that matter, how a plate-of-beans callout about boyzonefilter became something of a referendum on the sexist flag is mysterious to me. As if, in the absence of this new flag, this call-out would not have happened?

Yes, the new flag is kind of silly and redundant*. But, if you really think about it, only - what - three people read the flags? Three people of obvious intelligence who closely monitor every aspect of the site and actively participate in the great preponderance of the discussions, aren't clearly aware of why a comment got 56 flags and are in need of some clarification? Shit, we only need two flags:

Sexism debate, displaced. December 5, 2007 1:36 PM Subscribe

Sexism debate, displaced.
December 5, 2007 1:36 PM Subscribe