Why the gender discrepancy?
May 29, 2008 7:28 PM Subscribe

What are the disadvantages of being a woman? ---> Fine. What are the disadvantages of being a man? ---> Deleted.

Why was one of those questions OK and the other wasn't? The only thing different was the gender. In fact, if anything, the disadvantages-for-women question was chattier, as it brought in race and sexual orientation.

posted by Jaltcoh to etiquette/policy at 7:28 PM (385 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

Advertise here: Contact FM.

One of the disadvantages of being a man is that it makes you more prone to post Metatalk call-outs when your post has been deleted.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:32 PM on May 29, 2008 [6 favorites]

Both are clearly chatfilter, have no problem to solve, and should be nuked from orbit.
posted by Stynxno at 7:33 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Betcha this thread is gonna end up pissing me off. Mmhmm, I betcha.
posted by youarenothere at 7:33 PM on May 29, 2008

After "Can you create a great fictional team name" stayed up despite being a prime example of the kind of thing I thought we didn't do here, I gave up trying to figure it all out. It's summer. Here's a pail and a shovel, let's all go build sand castles.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:34 PM on May 29, 2008 [5 favorites]

Both are clearly chatfilter...

Meanwhile, agreed.
posted by youarenothere at 7:34 PM on May 29, 2008

The original one we argued about a bit behind the scenes and ultimately decided to let stand—it's definitely a citizen of Outer Chatistan, but we thought there was some reasonable merit at the core of it and gave it a pass.

The followup kind of wanders into a territory we try and avoid, where questions beget followup/mirror questions in kind of a me-too fashion, and the "okay here's the flip-side then" thing is more solidly into the realm of outright chatfilter (and sort of an analogue to double posts too) than the thing that narrowly got a pass in the first place.

In short, if someone had posted the original question but focused on the flip side of the gender equation, we'd have been just as likely to let it stand for the same reasons, and if someone had followed THAT up with the reverse it'd have been just as likely been deleted for the same reasons.
posted by cortex at 7:39 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Am I missing something? The one that stayed was about a white male straight male trying to figure out how these things give him advantage. The other was about the disadvantages of being male. Where's the women folk? What's to complain about, besides the asshole who ate the last of the ice cream?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:39 PM on May 29, 2008

Can't we just bury each other in the sand? I was never any good with sand castles :(
posted by puke & cry at 7:40 PM on May 29, 2008

The first question reads as what are the disadvantages of not being a straight white male in everyday life and it's borderline deletable chatfilter, but seems like the question asker is looking for answers pointing out things he never thinks of in his everyday life. The goal seems to be that he wants to learn more about the things he takes for granted.

The second one reads like what are the disadvantages to being a man and here I'll go first with three answers, which is pretty much chatfilter plain and simple, without any lofty goals of learning or solving any knowledge problem.
posted by mathowie at 7:41 PM on May 29, 2008 [4 favorites]

What are the disadvantages of being perfect?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:41 PM on May 29, 2008

Both are clearly chatfilter, have no problem to solve, and should be nuked from orbit.

Indeed.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:41 PM on May 29, 2008

And, yeah, I don't really see this as being about men vs. women so much as flip sides yin and yang questions about (straight white) male advantage vs. male disadvantage. Not that the complementary implications about being a (gay non-white) woman can't be taken from that, but that's not how the second question was framed at all.
posted by cortex at 7:42 PM on May 29, 2008

What are the disadvantages to being a Metafilter Mod?
posted by tkolar at 7:43 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

The original one we argued about a bit behind the scenes and ultimately decided to let stand—it's definitely a citizen of Outer Chatistan, but we thought there was some reasonable merit at the core of it and gave it a pass.

The followup kind of wanders into a territory we try and avoid, where questions beget followup/mirror questions in kind of a me-too fashion, and the "okay here's the flip-side then" thing is more solidly into the realm of outright chatfilter (and sort of an analogue to double posts too) than the thing that narrowly got a pass in the first place.

all this spinning is making my head hurt
posted by caddis at 7:44 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop being a whiny baby.
posted by OmieWise at 7:45 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

and sort of an analogue to double posts too

Well, it plainly wasn't a double post. Answers to the first post would have been irrelevant to the second post, and vice versa.

I've seen questions get asked on AskMe that are inspired by other questions, and they don't get deleted. There's nothing about that in the FAQ, and I've never seen it mentioned before on MetaTalk or in deletion reasons.

I also privately talked about this with jessamyn, and her answer contradicts yours, cortex. She said the first post was OK because it was influenced by a book.

The first question was allowed because it was talking about something politically correct, and my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:45 PM on May 29, 2008

The disadvantage of being a Mefi reader is that occasionally you stumble upon inane food fight conversations like this. The advantage of being a sentient human is that after this comment I can click away and return to my beer and sanford & Son rerun.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Sorry, in case it wasn't clear, that's directed to the OP, and anyone else who posts complaining about a deleted AskMe question.
posted by OmieWise at 7:46 PM on May 29, 2008

The original one we argued about a bit behind the scenes

There Will Be Moderating.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:46 PM on May 29, 2008

The first question was allowed because it was talking about something politically correct, and my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect.

What's it like to be that smart?
posted by OmieWise at 7:46 PM on May 29, 2008 [7 favorites]

The second one reads like what are the disadvantages to being a man and here I'll go first with three answers, which is pretty much chatfilter plain and simple

Mathowie, read the first post again. The OP said here I'll go first and gave several answers.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:48 PM on May 29, 2008

my question was deleted because I was talking about something

Indeed.
posted by tachikaze at 7:48 PM on May 29, 2008

I also privately talked about this with jessamyn, and her answer contradicts yours, cortex. She said the first post was OK because it was influenced by a book.

...how does that contradict my answer?
posted by cortex at 7:49 PM on May 29, 2008

my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect.

This is about more than just a post on website, isn't it?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:49 PM on May 29, 2008 [10 favorites]

Wow. The definition of chatfilter is pretty much losing all meaning. Rather than use it as a deletion, why not just say "we didn't like it"? It seems that the gray area for chatfilter is getting larger every day.
posted by Stynxno at 7:49 PM on May 29, 2008

The first question was allowed because it was talking about something politically correct, and my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect.

No, not by a country mile. You're arguing from a broken assumption here. Jesus christ.
posted by cortex at 7:50 PM on May 29, 2008

I also privately talked about this with jessamyn, and her answer contradicts yours, cortex. She said the first post was OK because it was influenced by a book.

...how does that contradict my answer?

You said they were equally valid questions on their own, and mine was deleted because it was asked second. Jessamyn said mine was deleted because the first one was based on a book, meaning it was more valid than mine. That's a flat-out contradiction.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:51 PM on May 29, 2008

Wait, if you thought the first question was chatfilter, why did you post your followup question anyway? Just to make this point about political correctness?
posted by bcwinters at 7:52 PM on May 29, 2008

No, not by a country mile. You're arguing from a broken assumption here. Jesus christ.

Care to explain instead of assert?

Two questions were asked. They were the same, except one was about women and the other about men. There's no Metafilter policy against two similar questions close together. The PC question stayed, the other was deleted.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:52 PM on May 29, 2008

Wait, if you thought the first question was chatfilter, why did you post your followup question anyway?

I never said either question was chatfilter. I assumed the first question wasn't chatfilter since it was left up and got a lot of good answers.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:53 PM on May 29, 2008

If you're already sure of why your question was deleted, why bother posting this and asking why it was deleted?
posted by CKmtl at 7:53 PM on May 29, 2008

No, I said that if the first one had been gender-swapped it would have been equally valid. As in, the gender (and the gender addressed in Peggy's original article) was immaterial to the fact that the first question was constructed in a way that ultimately decided was okay enough, whereas your followup question—again, regardless of the gender/polarity/whatever-the-hell—was chatty and me-tooish in a way that we have, in fact, deleted on several occasions where that sort of thing has happened.
posted by cortex at 7:54 PM on May 29, 2008

Care to explain instead of assert?

Let me explain: you are assuming that political correctness had anything to do with the deletion decision. You are incorrect in that assumption. That you are apparently disinclined to even question your own assumption, but have instead settled in your mind already what is going on in our heads, is ridiculous.
posted by cortex at 7:56 PM on May 29, 2008

One was more artfully drafted, one generated less intelligent answers, but the dichotomy is real. They are essentially mirror sides of the same question. The real world effects, such as jackass answers in the second question, are real though. Regardless, I think either both should stay or both should go, realizing that if both stay it requires a heavy moderation burden to keep the second question.
posted by caddis at 7:57 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Cortex, I understood what you meant. I'm getting three different answers from the three mods that all contradict each other.

I asked this question to see if there was a legitimate reason for leaving the question about disadvantages faced by women, while deleting the question about disadvantages faced by men. Mathowie, jessamyn, and cortex: you've convinced me that there was no real distinction and it was a completely ad hoc, politically motivated decision. Thank you for your time.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:59 PM on May 29, 2008

CKmtl wrote...
If you're already sure of why your question was deleted, why bother posting this and asking why it was deleted?

Come on... you were once a five year old. You understand Jaltcoh's mentality.
posted by tkolar at 7:59 PM on May 29, 2008

They were the same, except one was about women and the other about men.

The first question was about everyone other than straight white males. So that doesn't mean "women" but all sorts of other possibilities. It's not simply "pro-women, PC, so it's ok" and "boo-hiss, men, delete away" but thanks for trying to make it out to be.
posted by mathowie at 7:59 PM on May 29, 2008

The OP said here I'll go first and gave several answers.

Which is an excellent definition of chatfilter. I wonder where we all saw it?

Here, I'll go first. At MetaTalk.
posted by malocchio at 8:00 PM on May 29, 2008

it was a completely ad hoc, politically motivated decision. Thank you for your time.

Wow, terrific discussion here, thanks for being open minded. I guess I'll close this up then.
posted by mathowie at 8:01 PM on May 29, 2008

*bookmarks thread for morning entertainment*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:01 PM on May 29, 2008

There are no disadvantages to being a man, and everyone knows this (including the asker).

My genitals and a bicycle top tube were once violently thrown together in a effort to disprove your assertion. I believe they succeeded.
posted by maxwelton at 8:02 PM on May 29, 2008

I guess I'll close this up then.

really? that smacks of GW not being able to take the heat of discussion, and really is not like you. Is something bothering you outside of mefi?
posted by caddis at 8:03 PM on May 29, 2008

Well then, Jaltcock, you've proven that the mods were right to delete your question because you intended it to be "politically incorrect" which is a code word for obnoxious, offensive and bigoted.

BTW, I have lived my entire life as a white, straight American-born male, and it has never been a disadvantage for me, as long as I stuck with the white, straight American-born males who run things (and who claim that their opinions are "politically incorrect").
posted by wendell at 8:05 PM on May 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

It would be interesting to create a trollfilter project that would analyze threads for the presence of trolls and graph it against a calendar.

I'll bet the incidence goes way up after school lets out.
posted by tkolar at 8:06 PM on May 29, 2008

politically motivated decision

Based on which politics? Where is the motivation coming from? Who, exactly, do you believe is holding a gun to our heads on this? You zing me for asserting instead of explaining, and yet there you are, apparently reading our minds better than we can and just repeating your own assertion.

You don't have any apparent commenting history in policy metatalk threads prior to this one. That's fine, it's hardly a requirement and you're mostly active in askme so you may not see much of how the sausage gets made over here. But there are a wealth of old thread discussion issues about askme etiquette and policy, deletions and edge-cases; there's a lot of history to how we have made decisions. It might benefit you to spend some time digging through the Metatalk archives and getting familiar with the territory before declaring some weird petulant victory on the basis of not getting whatever happy sugar-coated response you were searching for.
posted by cortex at 8:07 PM on May 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

caddis, he asserted that "my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect" and cortex and others explained why that was wrong, but then he repeats it a couple more times and basically says in the end that his assumption about what we were thinking must be true, and that's the end of that.

I'm saying there's no point continuing this discussion if he's not open to actually discussing anything. It looks more like someone wanting to lob accusations at us and sticking to it even when the truth is explained to be different.
posted by mathowie at 8:07 PM on May 29, 2008

I just think Matt would be better off closing this thread before this "poor me, I'm a guy" character starts to really bring out the Etherial Bligh in me.
posted by wendell at 8:09 PM on May 29, 2008 [4 favorites]

oh no you di'int!
posted by waraw at 8:10 PM on May 29, 2008

Is something bothering you outside of mefi?

I am bothering him... to quit paying me seventy-seven cents for every dollar cortex earns.

[too soon?]
posted by jessamyn at 8:11 PM on May 29, 2008 [37 favorites]

I want to say that the What are the disadvantages of being a woman/minority/etc? thread is one of the most useful threads I've read on AskMe. It is slightly chatty, but the practical, factual answers will help me watch out for behavior that is offensive and innaprorpiate. I think it will make me into a better person.
posted by niccolo at 8:13 PM on May 29, 2008

[un-PC riposte redacted]
posted by cortex at 8:14 PM on May 29, 2008

The disadvantage of being a man or a woman is simply that at some point you have to look in the mirror and realize that you just ain't fucking tough enough for this old world. Advantages include: clean sheets, orgasms, book stores, a few moments of blessed silence, The Velvet Underground and roast pork shoulder with rice and beans in the Puerto Rican style, add to that as you wish.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:16 PM on May 29, 2008 [9 favorites]

Argh!
posted by Stewriffic at 8:20 PM on May 29, 2008

Obnoxious.
posted by owhydididoit at 8:20 PM on May 29, 2008

If I could delete this thread, I would.
posted by Roger Dodger at 8:28 PM on May 29, 2008

Why do you think Metatalk is called "the gray"?
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 8:29 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Boyzone? More like Oyzone!

No, wait, that's going to sound like either I'm Jewish or I think the Powers That Be are Jewish.

Boyzone? More like Babyzone!

I could be accused of being anti-baby for that...

Anyway, I, for one, welcome our new NOT white straight American male overlords, and hope they'd HURRY THE HELL UP before we screw things up even more.
posted by wendell at 8:31 PM on May 29, 2008

If this was a simple choice between two posts and one had to go, it is a simple answer, the first one stays as it will likely produce far more interesting information. Nevertheless, the second question is valid. There does exist discrimination against males. Nine times out of ten no one cares, even the similarly situated males, as that discrimination is so outweighed by privilege. It is that other one time that might make interesting answers. Whether metafilter denizens could rise to that and give a legitimate rather than a jokey answer is another question. They might not as it goes against the political grain here and we like jokes too much. I guess I have a fondness for the second question because the first one gets discussed ad nauseam, I know the answers, and they are painful, the second question gets discussed intelligently not so much. Are there subtle discriminations that white males face beyond the oft touted children in divorce and quota arguments? Maybe there are not, but if so it would be interesting and certainly would take mefi out of its normal political comfort zone. I can understand the deletion from the point of view that the discussion in the second question did not seem to be headed into this perhaps interesting territory, but rather was getting trite if not jackass. The broader concept though remains a legitimate question. Perhaps such reverse discrimination really is just theoretical, but I remain open to listen.
posted by caddis at 8:31 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Can give me a list of why my SUPER SECRET AMAZING MARKETING PLAN is really really AMAZING and will obviously make you A MILLION DOLLARS? There are obviously NO NEGATIVES at all, so can someone tell me how AWESOME I am?

please?
posted by blue_beetle at 8:32 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm getting three different answers from the three mods that all contradict each other.

Isn't this kinda the "Mom said no so I'm gonna ask Dad" phenomenon? If one said no, why would you bother pushing it further? See, the important point is not that the mods' answers contradicted one another (given that they are, you know, different people), but rather that the three were unanimous in saying "NO." By trying to play one against the other, you're just wasting three people's time instead of one. Seriously, how much indulgence does five dollars buy these days?
posted by roombythelake at 8:34 PM on May 29, 2008 [4 favorites]

Ugh. Just close this thread already.

Don't you people get it? If you couch the question in some greater a context, a chatfilter question easily survives. The second question (disadvantages of being male) could easily have been spared by framing the questions as: "I would like to be able to better refute the argument that males have invisible privileges, what are some disadvantages of being male that I could bring up to counter the so-called privileges" or something along those lines. You need to be particularly sensitive to this if your question is really axe-grinding.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:48 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

"politically incorrect" which is a code word for obnoxious, offensive and bigoted

Hey, I've got a good one: what do you do when your dishwasher stops working?

Well, the first thing is to determine if the device is receiving power and water, if the door is shut properly, and if the controls are set correctly. Once you've verified all these, it may be time to disassemble the dishwasher. If the dishwasher does not turn on at all, you should begin by examining the door switch and then the other control electronics. If, however, the device turns on but fails to start or complete its cycle properly, you may want to check to see if large food debris (or sometimes even a broken glass) is obstructing the motion of the main motor. From there, you can begin to examine the inlet valve and other parts of the water delivery system.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:49 PM on May 29, 2008 [16 favorites]

...there's also the possibility that, for all of the ~~spinning~~ explaining, the mods are actually just people who sometimes make mistakes (please don't ban me)... one of those mistakes being the deletion of the first AskMe post.

While I'd wager that a subconscious PC/socially conscious mindset was at least partially to blame for the longevity of the first question, the fact that they weren't sympathetic to your mindset in your question doesn't make the question valid... it just means that the first AskMe poster may have gotten away with chatfilter because the mods admired the sentiment.

Fair? No, but moderation never is.
posted by toomuchpete at 8:51 PM on May 29, 2008

Jaltcoh, word to the wise: Do not taunt happy fun mods.
posted by puke & cry at 8:51 PM on May 29, 2008

I just want to say that I quite enjoyed my answer and am hereby taking the opportunity to re-reveal it to y'all.

But, yeah, they're both total chatfilter, and I don't even know what that is.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:01 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

I am bothering him... to quit paying me seventy-seven cents for every dollar cortex earns.

This made me laugh really fucking hard. (And prevented me from saying something I shouldn't.)

Thank you!
posted by rtha at 9:02 PM on May 29, 2008

Why the gender discrepancy?

Oh, don't hate us because we're beautiful. And superior. And stuff.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:03 PM on May 29, 2008

I don't buy the "PC mindset" argument toomuchpete. The first question was someone wanting to know more about the things they take for granted, spurred on by a book they read. They wanted to learn more about the things they have no way of knowing about (like what it's like to be a gay black man in an office job, for instance).

The second was more like "hey, like that other question, what are some disadvantages of...". Pastabagel is right that framing and presentation matter -- if the second question had the goals explained or had something about why the asker was asking the question, it might have stayed. Jessamyn and cortex both debated deleting the first one but felt there was just enough learning going on to keep it around, the second not so much, and I agree.

The "PC" or "social conscious mindset" don't play into it.
posted by mathowie at 9:04 PM on May 29, 2008

I think generally people like to give threads time to breathe here. Whenever there are followups or variations on a post, if it's been less than even a few days (forget about a few hours) then the mods will suggest that the topic be raised in the original post.

I think that, after a month or two, if a someone posted something like this:

As a black woman, I know that I encounter a lot of sexism and racism. I tend to assume that males, white males in particular, pretty much have it easy all the time. But I recently read ______ in which ___ seemed to go through hell, partly because he was white and male. I never realized that there are some disadvantages to being male/white that I never realized.
________________________________________________________
What are some of the problems that males (white or black) encounter that I might not be aware of?

That's not chatfilter. That's someone trying to discover more about an area of experience they're not familiar with. It's a blurry boundary, but odds are good that if the goal of your question is to strive for furthering your own understanding, then it will stand if it has merit for the larger community. I think that the community could absolutely benefit from a discussion on the disadvantages and advantages of maledom. If you're so inclined, Jaltcoh, I invite you to do some good, balanced research and make a post to the blue that fully explores this. If you can find some excellent personal accounts, articles, etc that present insightful perspectives, the post will for sure get a healthy amount of traffic and discussion, if that is what you are going for.

As far as politically incorrect...I'm pretty sick of people bringing out "politically incorrect" and "politically correct" as descriptors. For sure, society needs to relax a bit sometimes. But the reason it's politically incorrect to say, "Oh yeah!?! What about the bad things that happen to men?!?" isn't because being politically incorrect means being "cool" or "challenging the status quo". It's because to make this counter question aims to invalidate or weaken the initial question, which covered white male privilege.

If you think men seriously suffer more from violence than women do, then you clearly need to educate yourself better. Rape and sexual assault are severely underreported in the United States, unless things have changed drastically. Your other arguments -- that men are expected to hold down a job, that they must respond to the draft -- sound painfully archaic (do you seriously think most women can opt out of work, even once married? Do you think there is ever a chance that the draft will actually be used for another war?). There are certainly plenty of problems that men encounter -- a good deal of it deriving from internalized sexism. For instance, it's a lot harder for men to express and feel emotion, and the image of men as sexual predators makes it harder for men to interact with children (sometimes even their own) without raising the suspicions of strangers.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:05 PM on May 29, 2008 [6 favorites]

Man, this is really bizzare, I'm surprised the mods (who have, in the past, seemed admirably unbiased) are letting just one of these threads stay. The questions are perfect opposites of one another:

1) What is the upside of being male I don't realize?
2) What's the downside of being male?

They're both extremely chatfiltery. If both had been removed, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. The fact that only one was removed indicates that it's the implied viewpoint of latter question that got it nixed. I answered the question, and spent some time thinking about it, because it really is difficult to answer. In comparison the disadvantages of non-straight-white-male-ness are clear. That doesn't make this question offensive or otherwise in violation of the the guidelines, except in the sense that it was chatfilter (but only to the degree that the first thread was).

I can't see any reason for this thread to be deleted except the fear that the discussion would turn un-PC (which, remarkably, it didn't seem to), and that doesn't seem in like with the kind of objectivity that drew me here in the first place.

So I guess that's why I'm disappointed, this doesn't seem like an objective decision. It's matt's site, he can do whatever he wants and I won't complain, it just seems inconsistent.

Are there people out there who really think there are no disadvantages to being male? It's not like the troubles men have invalidate or counteract the problems of women in society.
posted by phrontist at 9:08 PM on May 29, 2008 [10 favorites]

That's not chatfilter. That's someone trying to discover more about an area of experience they're not familiar with. It's a blurry boundary, but odds are good that if the goal of your question is to strive for furthering your own understanding, then it will stand if it has merit for the larger community.

Nah, I think this is a bunk metric. Judging the karmic intent of the poster seems futile and irrelevant to good discussion. In fact, I'd recommend people keep their motivations for asking out of questions, and that responders not consider it.
posted by phrontist at 9:11 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hey, at least one chatfiltery question got deleted. That's a pleasant reality.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:13 PM on May 29, 2008

If you think men seriously suffer more from violence than women do, then you clearly need to educate yourself better. Rape and sexual assault are severely underreported in the United States, unless things have changed drastically. Your other arguments -- that men are expected to hold down a job, that they must respond to the draft -- sound painfully archaic (do you seriously think most women can opt out of work, even once married? Do you think there is ever a chance that the draft will actually be used for another war?). There are certainly plenty of problems that men encounter -- a good deal of it deriving from internalized sexism. For instance, it's a lot harder for men to express and feel emotion, and the image of men as sexual predators makes it harder for men to interact with children (sometimes even their own) without raising the suspicions of strangers.

Nowhere in answering did I (or, from a quick look, anyone else) imply that these disadvantages evened out inequalities between sexes. I tried to couch my response in disclaimers to that effect as much as possible without making it unreadable.

Men can experience burdens as a result of gender stereotyping too. I think there is a conversation to be had about that independent of the issues of women - it's not a zero sum game.
posted by phrontist at 9:16 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

While I think both of the posts should have stayed or been nuked, Pastabagel and Deathalicious are dead on, IMHO. Rightly or wrongly, how a potentially chat-filter question is framed has seemed to dictate whether it's deleted in the past.
I seem to even recall one of the mods saying the same thing over a chatfilter callout in the past.
posted by jmd82 at 9:17 PM on May 29, 2008

jmd82: what framing? He references the other question, and asks his. It's not like he says "Hey, life with a Y chromosome can be a drag, amirite?"
posted by phrontist at 9:21 PM on May 29, 2008

They're both extremely chatfiltery. If both had been removed, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. The fact that only one was removed indicates that it's the implied viewpoint of latter question that got it nixed.

No, it does not indicate that. You can infer that, and there's not a damned thing we can do to stop you if you're really dead set on it, but that we've said several times already that that is not what motivated the deletions means either
- the inference is flawed, or
- we're big fat lying liars.

I'm kind of invested in the idea that it's not that second thing; folks might well disagree with our reasons for nixing the second question, or with the idea that deleting one and not the other at all instead of keeping or killing them as a pair, and that's fine. We disagree. But being told, repeatedly, that we did something for reasons we know very well, being us, are not true? That's pretty frustrating.
posted by cortex at 9:22 PM on May 29, 2008

Mathowie, jessamyn, and cortex: you've convinced me that there was no real distinction and it was a completely ad hoc, politically motivated decision. Thank you for your time.

The second question, the one that was deleted, was phrased in a kind of assholish way. It sounded like the questioner was trying to make a political point with the question. It seemed designed to piss people off and rile people up.

Putting aside any principled distinctions between the two questions, I think the second one was possibly deleted because it seemed calculated to piss people off and make a point, rather than a sincere attempt to get a question answered.
posted by jayder at 9:26 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

Lesson learned: When posing a sociological question on Ask MetaFilter, make up with a fake backstory to justify your needing the answer.
posted by knave at 9:29 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

...make up ~~with~~ a fake backstory...
posted by knave at 9:30 PM on May 29, 2008

The questions are perfect opposites of one another:

1) What is the upside of being male I don't realize?
2) What's the downside of being male?

The way I see it, the threads are only perfect opposites of one another if they each happened in a vacuum. But they did not. The second was asked specifically as a response to the first. It doesn't really seem like there's much value in comparing the two questions on their merits, independent of that fact. You cannot really separate the second question (at least, not as it was presented here -- I'm sure the same question could be asked in a better way) from the fact that it was a response to the first.
posted by Ms. Saint at 9:30 PM on May 29, 2008

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "There are no disadvantages to being a man, and everyone knows this (including the asker)."

Really? 'Cause two immediately come to mind. * *
posted by Mitheral at 9:31 PM on May 29, 2008

Fair? No, but moderation never is.

I don't think there's any part of this sentence that makes sense.
posted by desuetude at 9:32 PM on May 29, 2008

While I don't think either post needed deleted, I will support the mods on the matter of phrontist's inference being flawed. YOUR INFERENCE IS FLAWED.

Now, can this be the ~~drunk~~ beer smoking thread?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:33 PM on May 29, 2008

I just think Matt would be better off closing this thread before this "poor me, I'm a guy" character starts to really bring out the Etherial Bligh in me.

Indeed. I once had an editor at a major newspaper tell me point blank, "You have no future in writing because you're not a minority woman," and even I know this is chatfilter territory to stay clear of.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:39 PM on May 29, 2008

cortex: I didn't read any of the other responses before posting. I see your previous comment now - I didn't mean to come off as implying you were all cryptomisandrists. That said, I still support removal of the other thread, and stand by the rest of my previous comments.
posted by phrontist at 9:42 PM on May 29, 2008

Really? 'Cause two immediately come to mind. * *

I'll see your * * and raise you: 8==D~~~~ O-:

aww yeah.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:42 PM on May 29, 2008

The second question wasn't chatfilter, it was fuckyoufilter. The mods ought to delete fuckyoufilter.
posted by mullacc at 9:42 PM on May 29, 2008 [6 favorites]

Consider two imaginary AskMe questions:

1) "I'm thinking of moving from Washington, D.C., to Houston, Texas. I know the basics about both cities, and I think I'll be happier there, but I'm wondering if there's anything I've overlooked. What are some disadvantages to Houston that aren't obvious to the outside observer?"

2) "Inspired by that last one, what are some disadvantages of D.C.? I know it's really humid in the summer and it's full of politicians--what else?"

In question 1, the asker sounds like they are actually interested in finding out something that they don't already know. Question 2 reads like the asker doesn't need to know anything, and is just trying to start a conversation, especially since it's an obvious followup to question 1. It even has the classic chatfilter "I'll go first" format. This is why question 2 would be deleted. The only difference from this case is that the asker of the question 2 probably wouldn't go whining to MetaTalk about how they were OMGCENSORED!
posted by moss at 9:57 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

The master experiences the scope of freedom, but only the slave understands its value.
posted by Brian B. at 9:57 PM on May 29, 2008

Too many mutha'uckas 'uckin' with my shi'.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:57 PM on May 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

A clear disadvantage to being a man is that you can't experience the magic of child bi...oh wait. Never mind.
posted by puke & cry at 10:00 PM on May 29, 2008

The first question was allowed because it was talking about something politically correct,

*fap* *fap* *fap*

and my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect.

*fap**fap**fap*fap**fap**fap*

Right Wing Martyr Complex turns me so fucking on. Tell me how Christians are persecuted, now! Oh, yeah, baby!!
posted by dirigibleman at 10:08 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Nice one.
posted by tkolar at 10:10 PM on May 29, 2008

Jaltcoh, you're an idiot, just any idiot who brings up political correctness as a defense for shitty behavior. Just shut up, already. Thank you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:15 PM on May 29, 2008

You'll never experience the disadvantages of being a man, because if you were one you wouldn't be whining like this.
posted by Abiezer at 10:16 PM on May 29, 2008 [5 favorites]

You'll never experience the disadvantages of being a man, because if you were one you wouldn't be whining like this.

That was pretty misogynistic.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:26 PM on May 29, 2008

That was pretty misogynistic.

How so? Children of both genders whine....
posted by tkolar at 10:27 PM on May 29, 2008

the original thread has gotten a little silly. So I might as well add that as a white guy, I have never had my pastor be a pain-in-the-butt for my presidential campaign.

Also, white guys have names like Lenny and black guys have names like Carl.
posted by Deep Dish at 10:29 PM on May 29, 2008

Or perhaps you were just demonstrating how to read your own biases into things. If so, I think Jaltcoh is waaaaaay ahead of you.
posted by tkolar at 10:30 PM on May 29, 2008

"There are no disadvantages to being a man, and everyone knows this (including the asker). The question was only asked to raise hackles."

Sometimes I catch myself in my fly. But that might be better suited to "What are the disadvantages of having genitals so large that even working them into a conversation takes lube?"
posted by klangklangston at 10:32 PM on May 29, 2008 [20 favorites]

Or perhaps you were just demonstrating how to read your own biases into things. If so, I think Jaltcoh is waaaaaay ahead of you.

Oh please. "Disadvantages of being a man" was clearly meant to be a reference to the post itself, which clearly is discussing the "disadvantages of being a man" as opposed to those of being a woman.

All of the discussions have been along gender lines, so I don't think it was my "bias" to miss that Abiezer had started using the very same language that everyone else had been using to talk about gender to talk about age instead (if that is indeed what he was doing).
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:37 PM on May 29, 2008

There are no disadvantages to being a man, and everyone knows this (including the asker). The question was only asked to raise hackles.

OOOOOOHHHHHH YEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!!!!!
posted by dirigibleman at 10:38 PM on May 29, 2008

Definitely your biases showing there, Steve. You can speak to what it is to be a man without implying the opposite would be true of a woman, of course.
posted by Abiezer at 10:50 PM on May 29, 2008 [1 favorite]

Alright! this looks like it's turning in to my kind of thread!
posted by Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory at 10:50 PM on May 29, 2008 [5 favorites]

There are a few disadvantages to being a man:
1) Prostate cancer
2) An unholy kick in the balls
3)????
posted by puke & cry at 10:51 PM on May 29, 2008

4) Profit
posted by puke & cry at 10:52 PM on May 29, 2008

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America writes "I'll see your * * and raise you: 8==D~~~~ O-:"

Your title links didn't come through.
posted by Mitheral at 11:00 PM on May 29, 2008

I didn't read, let alone listen to anything said above....well....cause I am a woman trying to be manly:)

Speaking of which....puke? Your balls need a good spew.;)
posted by LiveLurker at 11:02 PM on May 29, 2008

NO NO NO! I will not listen, nor will I hear what Mathowie has to say about your balls!
posted by LiveLurker at 11:06 PM on May 29, 2008

um? hey! What happened to cortex?
posted by LiveLurker at 11:07 PM on May 29, 2008

lol hey you!;)
posted by LiveLurker at 11:09 PM on May 29, 2008

Maybe he's walkin' that cute librarian home?
posted by LiveLurker at 11:10 PM on May 29, 2008

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Nothing funner than being hellbanned!
posted by LiveLurker at 11:13 PM on May 29, 2008

Anyone seen LiveLurker around?
posted by puke & cry at 11:16 PM on May 29, 2008

stavros you chicken chit! Where the heck are you when it is time to play in the "back room".

You playing on the main, turkey?

DO NOT TELL ME...you are the MAIN turkey?
posted by LiveLurker at 11:17 PM on May 29, 2008

I also privately talked about this with jessamyn, and her answer contradicts yours, cortex.

Oooooooo, if my childhood is anything to go by, I think someone's trying to trick you guys into buying him a paintball gun for passing the fourth grade*.

*However, if my childhood is indeed anything to go by, you'll just end up getting him StarTropics instead.
Dip paper in water, my ass.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:18 PM on May 29, 2008 [2 favorites]

This particular issue is NOT about the content of the questions being posed! It's about the intent of the poster. And I know what you're thinking...how can we know what the OP's intent was??? We can't! BUT, we CAN read the contextual cues and make an educated guess, based on our knowledge of social norms and cultural standards. Some of those cues are: phrasing, level of cooperation, amount of background info given, use of punctuation, lexical choices, style of writing, and timing, especially with respect to other postings and/or conversations currently happening. For a good example of how this works, look into the recent backlash against Clinton's Kennedy remarks. The innappropriateness of what she said had everything to do with context, and hardly anything to do with the literal interpretation of the words spoken.

When you look at all the info gathered from the various contextual cues of the 2nd post, its not hard to see the failure to communicate here.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:21 PM on May 29, 2008 [3 favorites]

where the heck is the new night moderator?

vacapinta! we call you forth!
posted by LiveLurker at 11:22 PM on May 29, 2008

oh for heaven's sake....you got to the right answer there
posted by LiveLurker at 11:24 PM on May 29, 2008

And I see that my timing sucks, as I've missed all the fun while I was busy typin' up an all serious-like answer to the topic that has already been happily buried in the backyard.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:24 PM on May 29, 2008

i DID say kim got to the right answer. Someone is modding a bit too close to my tight fitting vest
posted by LiveLurker at 11:25 PM on May 29, 2008

*However, if my childhood is indeed anything to go by, you'll just end up getting him StarTropics instead.

You should have been thankful to get StarTropics. Ungrateful bastard. I got Yo! Noid.
posted by puke & cry at 11:25 PM on May 29, 2008

kim? is that you?
posted by LiveLurker at 11:27 PM on May 29, 2008

Shrinkydinks.
posted by iamabot at 11:27 PM on May 29, 2008

Put out your hand and hang on to puke who cries!
posted by LiveLurker at 11:28 PM on May 29, 2008

So what he is whining bout his male sexual organs
posted by LiveLurker at 11:30 PM on May 29, 2008

Huh? I'm confused.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:30 PM on May 29, 2008

Puke???? You OK buddy? Reach out for kim's hand!
posted by LiveLurker at 11:30 PM on May 29, 2008

We're all here for you
posted by LiveLurker at 11:32 PM on May 29, 2008

..............................silence has always been DEEP.............even more so here on MetaFilterTalk
posted by LiveLurker at 11:33 PM on May 29, 2008

kim?????

up to you now
posted by LiveLurker at 11:35 PM on May 29, 2008

You should hang out in the mecha irc chat, LiveLurker. I think it's time to call it a night here.
posted by puke & cry at 11:35 PM on May 29, 2008

..................................

Careful what you wish for, puke.
posted by LiveLurker at 11:38 PM on May 29, 2008

anyone here?
posted by LiveLurker at 11:43 PM on May 29, 2008

Surely there is ONE european awake?
posted by LiveLurker at 11:50 PM on May 29, 2008

posted by LiveLurker at 11:57 PM on May 29, 2008

oh MY

lol HEAVY editing here

enjoy!
posted by LiveLurker at 11:58 PM on May 29, 2008

So much for entertainment value.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:07 AM on May 30, 2008

Precisely, brandon blatcher.
posted by LiveLurker at 12:15 AM on May 30, 2008

If metafilter is about entertainment value? Tell the kids they need a new schtick.
posted by LiveLurker at 12:17 AM on May 30, 2008

so, when everybody's asleep, the lurkers come out & have conversations with themselves, but by the time we're all awake again, the mods have removed all traces....?

does this go on every night? it's like an insight into the life of leprechauns!
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:22 AM on May 30, 2008

24 comments in this thread, all unmitigated content-free drivel. Way to go, lurker.
posted by Wolof at 12:37 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

It's weird, on the one hand I want to get into the subject of this post, but on the other hand it's fucking crazy, but there's a bit of interesting discussioin that's been shat on by the crazy parts.

But it's 3am in the morning and the Aussies aren't amusing me, so what the fuck.

A better question would be "What does it mean to be man in Western society these days" While I understand the sentiment behind the idea of "What are the disadvangtes of being a male", but the sheer number and weight of advantages of being a male are so huge that to even but "male disadvantages" in the same building as female or minority disadvantages is just fucking crazy. Really.

However, even the question of "what does it mean to be a man in Western society these days" is a bit broad, as there are various answers to that based on class and race. and then you need to determine whether the role that society expects of you is good or even what you want. and if you go against that role, can you deal with the ongoing societal backlash as your identity, as society thinks it should be, is continually questioned.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:43 AM on May 30, 2008

You said they were equally valid questions on their own, and mine was deleted because it was asked second. Jessamyn said mine was deleted because the first one was based on a book, meaning it was more valid than mine. That's a flat-out contradiction.

Actually, it's not if you think about it. They are just different reasons for deleting the post, which when they transform, form the Lion Force Voltron of reasons as why that post was deleted.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:53 AM on May 30, 2008 [3 favorites]

bah, lightweights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:58 AM on May 30, 2008

Apparently my wish was granted, 'cause someone was sure smoking or drinking something.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:25 AM on May 30, 2008

Something about this late night crowd! MWAH!
posted by LiveLurker at 1:30 AM on May 30, 2008

wolof? may i tell you to fuck off sir? Only in the most polite way. Heavens we have yet to even disagree about much of anything and so soon enemies?
posted by LiveLurker at 1:43 AM on May 30, 2008

I'm not your enemy. Posting potted will make you feel silly in the morning.
posted by Wolof at 1:49 AM on May 30, 2008

WHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
lol

Something tells me that matt and his cronies are gonna take me off of hellban soon enough

WAHoooooooooooooooo YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
posted by LiveLurker at 1:49 AM on May 30, 2008

Maybe not my enemy, wolof, but surely not my friend.

So go count up jonmc's contribution if we are being elitist
posted by LiveLurker at 1:52 AM on May 30, 2008

I am not going to be embarassed about anything tomorrow, because I see what matt and jess and cortex have done over the years.
posted by LiveLurker at 1:53 AM on May 30, 2008

LiveLurker are you still there? Have you passed out? Hello?
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 2:08 AM on May 30, 2008

We have a hellban?

You realize even if we do and it applies in some form to you, you don't seem to be hellbanned on this part of the site?
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:11 AM on May 30, 2008

There are no disadvantages to being a man, and everyone knows this
While I'd tend to agree with Mr. President, it has occured to me in recent years what a boogie-man the middle aged white man is.

If my friend, white dude aged 40 not unusual in any way, goes to the park to see if his nieces are there and looks around for them he'll soon feel the "uh-oh pedophile" eyes on him, even though finding these kids in the park is perfectly normal and wanting to hang out with your family over ice-cream is even more so. Nobody bats an eye if I do the same with my nieces.
The middle aged white man is supposedly in a position of power, at all corporations, in government, everywhere making lots of money, deal and laws that affect everywhere - and possibly running off with peoples pensions. You read about these guys every day since Enron. Nevermind that I don't know any middle aged white man in a position of power, they all just have regular joe jobs and try to make a living.
A kid gets a little lost in a public place and he'll turn to me to ask for help, and not my middle aged male pal despite the fact that he is far better at talking to children than I am. It must be weird to feel that you are the ultimate villain, belonging to a group that is blamed for everything wrong in the world when really, you're just a guy who hit the big 40.
posted by dabitch at 2:16 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

If I'm ever banned, I want to be hellbanned.

Mathowie: Trolley, you're banned.
Trolley: Fuck. What kind of banned?
Mathowie: Hellbanned.
Trolley: Yeeessss! Fucking aaayyy!
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 2:21 AM on May 30, 2008

Were you here when Paris Paramus was asked to leave because he had an "alternate view"?

Were you here when dios was asked to get lost once again because he had another alternate view?

Anyone named steve seems destined for the metafilter bin today. Tomorrow it might be Brandon, or wolof.

Matt and cortex and jessamyn are acting as idiotically as most of the politicians we know today.

WTF?

I am ashamed for them. They used to have values. Now? They go by the numbers of supporters.

We don't all need to agree, but we can surely expect leaders to lead.

In the "old Metafilter days" Paris Paramus and dios would have been protected for their right to free speech. And they both were, then. Today? I watched the leaders cave to the masses and nearly call for their dismissal. Instead of dismissing, the leaders shut down the dialogue while the masses cheered.

This is a fine line we all walk here. Might does not make right unless you show up without a gun, in which case you need to count on you and your buddies talking a buncha bullshit. YES i said bullshit. You can talk this bull here for as long as you want, but at least check out what is happening beyond your doors.

I don't think like you do. I don't come to the same conclusions as you do. Unlike you, I want to know WHY you feel the way you do?

I have curiosity about those who aren't of my mind. That seems to be a trait we don't share....Sadly.
posted by LiveLurker at 2:27 AM on May 30, 2008

dabitch,

The most interesting question, to me, is why do white males have such high suicide rates? Genetics? They have such high expectations because of their perceived status and when they don't live up to this it's a bullet to the brain? What is it?

I have never seen a lengthy serious discussion about this. Maybe it would make a good AskMe question if it was framed right.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 2:34 AM on May 30, 2008

Can we just globally search+replace "chatfilter" with "You didn't frame this correctly" and then link to a How-To for what the right way to frame your chatfilter question is?
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:45 AM on May 30, 2008

Can we just globally search+replace "chatfilter" with "You didn't frame this correctly" and then link to a How-To for what the right way to frame your chatfilter question is?

Bullshit. If you think presenting a question in a certain way has nothing to do with how the question is perceived by the mods, then you have not been reading this thread in a careful way.

If you think that a question about white male suicide rates is chatfilter no matter how it's "framed" then you're pretty much a dolt.

Care to expand?
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 2:55 AM on May 30, 2008

It's my bedtime and I'm sick, but: Now? They go by the numbers of supporters.

IT'S LIKE SOME KIND OF SICK DEMOCRACY
posted by tracicle at 3:00 AM on May 30, 2008

Yeah I see you LiveLurker.. did you get a little shiver when you read that?
posted by h00py at 3:04 AM on May 30, 2008

TrolleyOffTheTracks, if you ask Howard Bloom he'd say that they kill themselves when they are no longer of any use to the superorganism, because men are by nature expendable. And yes, I think it would make an interesting question too.

Now that is interesting. I will read Howard Bloom. I've been curious, without making the effort to find out why, for the past couple of years about the high suicide rates. I'm 42 and have experienced five suicides, white males, that were either family, friends or aquaintances in the past ten years. Thanks.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 3:06 AM on May 30, 2008

If you think men seriously suffer more from violence than women do, then you clearly need to educate yourself better.
Actually the crime statistics are pretty clear on this. " Males experienced higher victimization rates than females for all types of violent crime except rape/sexual assault. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most murder victims were male, 79% in 2005.

But this is not quite the argument that some people think it is. Men are more likely to be the victim of violent assaults by other men. As a gender, to be a majority of the victims, but a bigger majority of the perpetrators is to enjoy a relative privilege, even though you are more likely to suffer from it. And this is without considering the patterns of male on male vs male on female (and female on male, men are the reported victims of around 20% of domestic violence cases), as well as the imbalance in abilities to protect oneself.
posted by tallus at 3:14 AM on May 30, 2008

IT'S LIKE SOME KIND OF SICK DEMOCRACY

Don't feed that troll — seriously, it's not even worth it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:18 AM on May 30, 2008

DILUTE! DILUTE! OK?
posted by loquacious at 3:24 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

I feel I should add that not everyone in Europe was shit-faced last night. I, for example, enjoyed a fine cheesecake with my fiance whilst watching the Graduate before toddling off to bed at around 1am.

I've got next wednesday week marked in my diary for lunatic late-night chain commenting.
posted by Jofus at 3:34 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Trolley, that was the point. Chatfilter is implicitly OK when it's surrounded by enough fluff and there's no documentation for people to find out which pieces of fluff you need to let your question stand.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:40 AM on May 30, 2008

Trolley, that was the point. Chatfilter is implicitly OK when it's surrounded by enough fluff and there's no documentation for people to find out which pieces of fluff you need to let your question stand.

Aaaahh. I understand. Thank you.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 3:52 AM on May 30, 2008

This has not been a good talk.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:18 AM on May 30, 2008

#insert "free speech on privately owned server.diatribe"
posted by stelas at 4:28 AM on May 30, 2008

You're modding more than 8.

You're going to get wow on your top.

You take that negative feedback down through your rumble filter - to your woofer - what do you get?

FLUTTER ON YOUR BOTTOM!
posted by flabdablet at 4:47 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

The first question was allowed because it was talking about something politically correct, and my question was deleted because I was talking about something politically incorrect.

So has ParisParamus got himself another account? I didn't get the MefiMail yet?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:15 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

We have a problem on channel twelve, high frequency oscillation!

Problem on channel one! Low frequency feedback!

We have a problem on channel sixteen - I believe it's an uncalibrated calculation of compression circuits!

Track twenty-four reporting an uncontrollable low frequency beat - we can't seem to locate it.

Track fourteen - trying to maintain proper stablization on this channel without creating a situation of overmodulation!

Your selectors are locked! Your channels are centered!
posted by loquacious at 5:17 AM on May 30, 2008

Let's pretend we don't assume the conclusion: White Hetero Men have it better than everyone.

Look how hard it is to discuss how they might not... look how much of a fight it is to treat the conclusion as a question. Look how often everyone assumes the conclusion and refuses to discuss it.

This is what discrimination is all about people: It's about assumptions. Women can't do that job. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Black people are lazy. White hetro men are kings of the world.

This is why, incidentally, free speech is so important. The majority, even when it is a bunch of aligned minorities, will always try to oppress the minorities in the system. Always. Welcome aboard all you minorities... you can become oppressors too.

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle over here. You two *might* have something in common!
posted by ewkpates at 5:18 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

What are the disadvantages of being a man?

#1) You spend most of your life so privileged that you need to fabricate completely artificial controversies in order to feel like a victim.
posted by googly at 5:19 AM on May 30, 2008 [10 favorites]

Boyzone? More like Oyzone!

"Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:27 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

...and googly makes a fantastic point: Being a victim is not about being treated in a way you don't like... no no! Being a victim only happens when a certified minority says you are a victim! See, white males can't be victims because all the minorities agree: white males have nothing to complain about!

Fan-tastic job, noobie. Now Carol, listen closely, and it pains me to say this since I’m sure you’ve heard it before in one of you knitting circles: One of the foundational principles of the feminist movement is that ya' don't speak for other people's experience! Ya don't! I'm sure your happy with your certificate of "what-ever-the-heck-it-is-ya-think-ya know", but try to remember, we all got one of those. So, we’re all qualified! Enjoy!
posted by ewkpates at 5:28 AM on May 30, 2008

Can give me a list of why my SUPER SECRET AMAZING MARKETING PLAN is really really AMAZING and will obviously make you A MILLION DOLLARS? There are obviously NO NEGATIVES at all, so can someone tell me how AWESOME I am?

One of my favorite AskMe trainwrecks!
posted by necessitas at 5:30 AM on May 30, 2008

I'm just popping in to say: jonmc, you hideous mongrel creature, I still have the Sanford & Son theme song stuck in my head. Still!

By god this aggression will not stand!
posted by aramaic at 5:31 AM on May 30, 2008

ewkpates, I would agree that there are plenty of white hetero men who have it worse than some black lesbians, but if I had to hazard a guess in thoses cases class would probably be involved. I personally think that being white and poor is "worse" than being rich and black. Similarly being white and female is often more advantageous than being black and male.

But at the end of the day, racism exists. Sexism exists. And it's structural, which is to say that racism and sexism are built into the way that things operate, how we are taught to think about things, and the messages sent through our media. These translate to white privilege, and male privilege.

It's hard to discuss how white males might not have it better than everyone because it's hard to find evidence that disproves it. I mean, it's certainly possibly that straight white men aren't happier than women, people of color, or members of the queer and trans community. However, that wasn't what the question was about. The question was what structural advantages a straight white male benefits from simply from being straight, male and white. And white straight males still overwhelmingly control the structure.
posted by Deathalicious at 5:52 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I found this thread interesting because the second I read the question "What are the disadvantages of being a man?" I immediately thought "duh, n times more likely to have to make the first move, so n - success rate times more likely to experience painful rejection." When I was single I sometimes (not always) hated having to approach women, but if you wait to be approached, you might wait a long time. And, when you are the approach-er, there is a small but non-zero chance of the rejection being pretty harsh. Behaving that way is a privilege of the 'pursued'. Of course women experience this, but (unless they are queer and motivated) as a group they experience it comparatively less than men, so that's a definite disadvantage of being a straight guy. And I'd like to point out that the more than a man is a good man by conventional standards, i.e. respectful to women and doesn't retaliate in the face of OTT nastiness, the more emotional impact this rejection is likely to have. Considering the centrality of romantic connection to the culture, this is no small thing.

Another one: if you are seen by society as the default provider for your family, and you can't provide, it is seen as a far greater shame than it is for a woman to be a poor earner. People feel bad for a female head of household who can't earn enough, and they feel judgmental of a male head of household who can't earn enough. It isn't lost on me that both of my examples relate to flipsides of male privilege and socialization, but I don't think that means they aren't disadvantages.

Another one: some people, male and female, may have chortled when they read my phrase "romantic connection" and thought "yeah, the reason guys approach a lot of women is for reasons of romance." But, having known a lot of straight and gay guys, the wish for romantic connection emerges all the time, but it's a sort of amorphous unexplored notion since man + romantic needs = unmasculine, or people don't believe it exists because it doesn't involve the same signifiers of romance as it would for women. Not discounting the interest in sex without romance (which a lot of women I know also have) but the two things often co-exist in the same heart.

I guess I'm both a feminist and a masculist to some extent. I think things could get better for both women and men, although it's very obvious that there is a lot more ground to cover for women.

Sorry to post something serious at the bottom of a thread that has descended into such dumbassery!
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 5:52 AM on May 30, 2008 [7 favorites]

First they came for the right-wing trolls, and I didn't speak up because I'm not a right-wing troll.
posted by miss tea at 6:09 AM on May 30, 2008

Then they came for people in the wrong thread, and I wasn't sure which thread to speak up in.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 6:13 AM on May 30, 2008

LiveLurker: can you please put me in touch with your meth dealer?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:18 AM on May 30, 2008

First they came for the right-wing trolls, and I didn't speak up because I'm not a right-wing troll.

Then no one ever came for anyone ever again... unless it was for tea, or Eeyore's Birthday Party, or to borrow a cup of reefer, or simply to say hello and see how you were doing - because the nosy no-goodnik busybodied cryptofascists were finally gone, once and for all, and everyone grew their hair out and put flowers in it and lived happily and freakily ever-after. Amen!
posted by loquacious at 6:28 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

People feel bad for a female head of household who can't earn enough

Right, what rock have you been living under that you've never heard of the welfare queen stereotype?

And, when you are the approach-er, there is a small but non-zero chance of the rejection being pretty harsh. Behaving that way is a privilege of the 'pursued'.

Actually, many men feel totally free to make harsh insults about a woman's looks or character to her even if she's completely minding her own business.
posted by Salamandrous at 6:28 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm not saying you don't mean well, Deathalicious, I'm saying you don't get it.

To really really oversimplify so as to highlight the problem: White guys have an easier time getting promotions because they can "be one of the guys" with the white owner of the company.

Problem: White guy doesn't like/or want to "be one of the guys" but if he doesn't he not only won't get promoted, he might even get fired because there is clearly something wrong with him.

Structural privilege, as you refer to it, exists only is specific substructures. To the extent to which white people have control over a majority of structures in Europe and America the possibility of a general structural privilege exists. But where race and sex aren't problems, class and religion can be equal obstacles.

White privilege is a discriminatory term... if we say "race, sex, orientation, class, or religious privilege" well, we start to see that most people have privilege somewhere. More than that, we begin to see how privileges cancel each other out, and that the few white english christian hetero sexual upper middle class people who benefit from some kind of general privilege should get to define the conversation about privilege for everyone else.
posted by ewkpates at 6:29 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

I didn't think either of those (or for that matter the fictional-team-names Q) were chatfilter because all of the questions were clearly trying to build a discrete list, and asking for help populating it.

They were not "what do you all think" or "tell me about your experiences" questions, even if some answerers could not resist anecdote instead of answer. Not the questioners fault!
posted by rokusan at 6:37 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Boy oh boy. First: I still have the Sanford & Son theme song stuck in my head -aramaic. Now I have it too, but it makes me think of Redd Foxx so it's all good.

Next: It is possible for white men, individually, to have a difficult time in life. It is even possible for white men to experience racism (I was called "white devil" more than once and attacked by a crazy person with a screwdriver on one occasion). It is preposterous to suggest that white men are a disenfranchised or under-privileged minority.

If you are white and you dress a little sloppy, people think you're an IT guy. If you're black and you dress a little sloppy, you can't get a job at McDonald's, and some white people will cross the street to avoid you.

If you're white and you walk into a Target store in the suburbs, you're a customer. If you're black and you walk into that same store, you're tailed.

The problem with being a white guy is thinking the world owes you a living.
posted by Mister_A at 6:40 AM on May 30, 2008

The second question violated WP:POINT.

What's that? That's a Wikipedia guideline, not a MetaFilter guideline? Well, it should be. In fact, it's a good guideline for civilized people in pretty much all areas.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:01 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

That's not to say that there aren't disadvantages to being a man, but they are all relative and generally cut both ways, eg men can't bear children–but on the other hand, women can't fertilize eggs. See?

So of course there are going to be some perceived disadvantages to manhood, which will vary broadly from one man to the next, and none of which are really objective, which makes the question in question a sort of Platonic ideal of chatfilter. Well done, mods!
posted by Mister_A at 7:01 AM on May 30, 2008

Right, what rock have you been living under that you've never heard of the welfare queen stereotype?

That's a pretty rude way to couch a fair observation, but since you ask, I heard the welfare queen stereotype a lot in the late 80s when it was a political football, but not in a while. It might be because I don't live in the USA, so maybe someone who does can tell me if it is such a popular stereotype anymore, by which I mean, do you hear people make reference to it? My own observation is that people I've seen are more compassionate towards a struggling female earner than a struggling male one. Maybe it's because they are thinking "he isn't making anything of his male privilege" or maybe it's because being a great provider is seen as a masculine virtue and not succeeding at it is seen as shameful.

Actually, many men feel totally free to make harsh insults about a woman's looks or character to her even if she's completely minding her own business.

True, this has happened to me. But I wasn't talking about what assholes do in random outbursts, I was talking about what non-assholes may experience in their quest to connect. This is the reason I mentioned having a difference in perspective; I don't get the idea that because some men act like assholes and because men have many advantages, there must not be disadvantages to being male. I don't see the first as magically subsuming the other.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 7:11 AM on May 30, 2008

Dear God,

Please kill this thread.

Also, are you a White Male with a Beard? If so, can we talk about the theological implications of race all day?

Kind regards,

Farishta
posted by farishta at 7:16 AM on May 30, 2008

Sorry, I forgot wanted to give an example. I have heard career-success women and career-success men (and women with no career, or an undistinguished career) paint a man as a loser for having an undistinguished career, but I haven't yet heard women or men describe a woman this way for this reason. It's anecdata, so I'm open to hearing if other people's experiences are very different.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 7:25 AM on May 30, 2008

*buries puke & cry in the sand and wanders off to replay level 5 of StarTropics for the bazillionth totally fun time*
posted by Tehanu at 7:29 AM on May 30, 2008

I consider myself equal to a man, but I'd still consider it rude if he didn't wait for me to enter/exit the elevator.

Hee hee. My daughter gets flack from her female peers actually trying to move boxes on her own, even if they're light as hell. "Don't work that hard, let the men do it, that's what they're there for!" is the sentiment. Funny ol' world.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:36 AM on May 30, 2008

Off-topic, desjardins, but in a suburban office complex where I used to work, there was this bizarre phenomenon of "aggressive courtesy". The principal manifestation was holding the door open for someone, even if that person was very far away and didn't need the door held open (able-bodied, unencumbered, etc). People would get all nervous like, "I've got to hurry up and get to that door that that white guy is holding open," and they would run to get to the door so that the person who decided to hold the door open for them wouldn't have to be "inconvenienced" anymore.

I think that's just plain silly, and I actually resented people who did this (there were quite a few), because I found it to be showy and, worse yet, motivated by the desire to be perceived as generous of spirit, rather than by true magnanimity.

To your point, I don't think men in general resent this cultural dictate about holding the door for women or moving furniture; many actually enjoy it because they actively embrace their (our) gender roles in society. I hold the door for women, except in cases like I described above, where it would be obnoxious and showy to do so.
posted by Mister_A at 7:37 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure if it needs pointing out, but we gave LiveLurker a bit of a timeout. Nice to see you tracicle.
posted by jessamyn at 7:54 AM on May 30, 2008

jessamyn, thank god - e was getting on my nerves.
posted by kalessin at 8:24 AM on May 30, 2008

206 comments?! This thread should be flagged as Hepafilter, because the only things in it are irritants.

Yes, including myself.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:36 AM on May 30, 2008 [5 favorites]

I'm not sure if it needs pointing out, but we gave LiveLurker a bit of a timeout.

Snarky response: Aw, man. And they were just a few million keystrokes away from accidentally writing the next Surrealist Manifesto.

Serious response: OH MY GOD THANK YOU NOW CAN YOU HELP ME CLEANSE THE LANGUAGE-VIRUS FROM MY MIND OH THE BURNING MAKE IT STOP *eye tics wildly*
posted by loquacious at 8:40 AM on May 30, 2008

Mister_A: I see the same thing at my office, but I think it's more that the door is quite heavy and if you don't hold it open then it swings back hard right in the face of the person behind. Better to inconvenience them by making them do the awkward shuffle-trot towards the door than flatten their nose perhaps.
posted by patricio at 8:55 AM on May 30, 2008

I sometimes get stuck being the "I'm holding the door open for you even though you're ages away" person (I can't be the only non-male who holds doors open for people). It happens because there is a certain distance between you and the other person where, if you don't hold the door open for them, the door will manage to close all the way just at the time that they're getting to it, making you look like a complete jerk for closing the door in their face.

Of course, holding it open does mean you get the awkward "Oh, thanks! runrun" response... But it's a trade off. Neither option is good.

What we need, as a society, is some sort of hand signal. A "I'm thinking of opening this door for you, but we both know it isn't exactly feasible for me to do so" hand signal. Yes.
posted by Ms. Saint at 9:01 AM on May 30, 2008 [3 favorites]

If the person is likely to be struck by the swinging door I've just released, well then I won't release it. If I see someone on the other side of the parking lot, I'm not going to hold the door.
posted by Mister_A at 9:07 AM on May 30, 2008

desjardins wrote...
[elevators...doors...] I wondered if there was any male resentment towards these things.

Only when they're treated as a right instead of privilege.
posted by tkolar at 9:08 AM on May 30, 2008

I let women off of the elevator first in my building because it seems to be convention. If everyone understands that the women get off first then there's less time spent doing the "who's going first" dance and we all spend less time on the elevator as a result. Anything that results in less time on the elevator is a good thing.

The other convention (less strictly followed unfortunately) is to immediately go if someone motions for you to do so ahead of them. Don't "be polite" and offer the inverse. That wastes time.

I sometimes get asked to carry stuff for other departments because I'm a guy. This has been happening since elementary school, so it doesn't seem strange to me ("I need four strong boys to carry this table to the other classroom."). I can't help but wonder if we tried to equal things out in the schools if it would carry on through to the workforce.
posted by ODiV at 9:18 AM on May 30, 2008

I'm not sure if it needs pointing out, but we gave LiveLurker a bit of a timeout.

WHY R YOU MODS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PARANOID PEOPLE! YOU OUR SO JUDEMENTL!!!

I AM NOW OFFISULLY ASHAMED TO BE REEDING METHFILTAR. IF WE TWEAKERS CAN'T SUPPORT EACH OTHER WHEN WE'RE ON A BAD COMEDOWN AND THE BUGS ARE BURROWING UNDER OUR SKINS, WHAT DID WE PAY OUR $5 DOLLARS FOR?

AND ANOTHER THING.... WHY DID YOU DELETE MY ASK ME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOURCES FOR BUYING OF SUDAFED IN BULK? I SUFFER FROM TERRIBLE NASAL CONGESTION. WHY DO YOU HATE PEOPLE WITH SINUS PROBLEMES?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:23 AM on May 30, 2008

Welcome aboard all you minorities... you can become oppressors too.

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle over here. You two *might* have something in common!

So you're saying that this is the pot calling the kettle white?
posted by The Bellman at 9:24 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

If you're white and you walk into a Target store in the suburbs, you're a customer. If you're black and you walk into that same store, you're tailed.

THIS IS SUMWHAT DEPENDNT ON YOUR TOOTH COUNT, IN MY EXPRIENCE
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:28 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

but in a suburban office complex where I used to work, there was this bizarre phenomenon of "aggressive courtesy".

That is a fantastic idea. I'm going to slowly and secretly push for this in my work environment, by making courtesy and politeness a competitive sport.

It will start slow, with people waiting longer and longer to be the last one out of an elevator, and I have visions of this culminating when two guys are tackling each other and throwing rabbit punches, all in an effort to get to the door first and be the one to hold it open for the ladies who are still a block away.
posted by quin at 9:30 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

The most interesting question, to me, is why do white males have such high suicide rates? Genetics? They have such high expectations because of their perceived status and when they don't live up to this it's a bullet to the brain? What is it?

My guess: white males are indeed more likely to have few problems/drama in their lives, and some people when they have no problems or drama have to create some, leading to depression and suicide. Black people or whatever are more likely to have real worries which seem sort of less likely to lead to suicide. There's also a bit about how the methods males are socialized to use to kill themselves usually work while the more "feminine" suicide methods tend to fail.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:33 AM on May 30, 2008

"aggressive courtesy"

I have to cross the street at a sort of weird angle to get to the post office from my house. Sometimes when I'm about to cross, a car will come around the corner (fairly slowly, it's in a little town) see me on the sidewalk, slam on the brakes and then wave me on in this totally impatient "COME ON ALREADY" way. This is especially excellent if there is traffic coming the other way and it's really not a great time to cross the street in the first place.

I am going to the post office with a little letter to mail. I have plenty of time and it's a nice day out. I'm safe on the sidewalk. It is not raining.

So, suddenly I'm in this politeness obligation trap with mister grumpy-wavey-hands to please get on with it and cross the road that he has so graciously backed up traffic on (only) half of for me. Pickup trucks whiz by going the other direction.

I am standing on the sidewalk. There is no crosswalk, no legal obligation.

So, depending on my mood I'll either cross the street with facial and body gestures of relief and approval for the opportunity to cross that has been so graciously provided for me, a lowly pedestrian by mister brake slammer pseudo-politeman who is in some sort of hurry. I'll bow if I can.

Other times I'll pretend that I have reached my appointed X-marks-the-spot on the sidewalk that nothing will be able to pry me from, and I am in my appointed position, and oh I wasn't going to be crossing the street anyhow, and let's pretend that this all never happened. This works extra well if I combine it with my transported-to-another-dimension routine where I no longer see the roads and cars around me and I'm standing in the middle of a vast and dense forest listening to distant lute music.
posted by jessamyn at 9:43 AM on May 30, 2008 [15 favorites]

I guess I'm both a feminist and a masculist to some extent

Which is why the whole concept of 'feminism' is sort of self-defeating. By which I mean the whole point is equality, yeah? So call it 'humanism' and work from there.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:49 AM on May 30, 2008

And here I was hoping - when I saw the first question - that once, just once, we could have a resource/experience learn session about racism/sexism/etc. on Metafilter without a kneejerk "why aren't we talking about me?!? reaction. Alas, some whiner always has to go and ruin all the fun.
posted by lunit at 9:51 AM on May 30, 2008

Indeed. I once had an editor at a major newspaper tell me point blank, "You have no future in writing because you're not a minority woman," and even I know this is chatfilter territory to stay clear of.

And they were wrong, weren't they? And that declaration was clearly counter-factual given the demography of newsrooms. Plus, aren't you a black dude? It would seem weird to not just tell you that you had no future unless you were also a woman, providing you weren't standing in the offices of the Timbuktu Post-Informer.
posted by klangklangston at 9:51 AM on May 30, 2008

I hate it when I am crossing the street and will be passing behind an oncoming car only to have the car stop and wave me on.
posted by ODiV at 9:52 AM on May 30, 2008

It's odd because I (a white woman) was wondering about the other day at work, where invariably men will hold the door open for women, will wait until all the women are out of the elevator before exiting, and are expected to be the movers-of-furniture (even when women are able, they rarely volunteer). I wondered if there was any male resentment towards these things. I consider myself equal to a man, but I'd still consider it rude if he didn't wait for me to enter/exit the elevator.

I have a lot of resentment to the movers-of-stuff thing. I mean, why are you asking the short dumpy fag, when the seriously athletic girl is right there? I'm serious about this. It's kind of weird.

As for the elevator/door opening thing, I just open doors for people. Gender is pretty irrelevant.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:54 AM on May 30, 2008

'Humanism' was taken, and it didn't really jive well with the whole movement of women, specifically, looking for better treatment.
posted by Ms. Saint at 9:55 AM on May 30, 2008

Which is why the whole concept of 'feminism' is sort of self-defeating. By which I mean the whole point is equality, yeah? So call it 'humanism' and work from there.

If you do that then no one on top gets to use identity politics to play arbitrary groups against each other and their own best interests.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:02 AM on May 30, 2008

and are expected to be the movers-of-furniture (even when women are able, they rarely volunteer). I wondered if there was any male resentment towards these things.

I resent more that I get this attitude delivered to me by some of my male co-workers. I don't think I've ever had a woman in my office beg off of heavy lifting on account of being a woman; on account of health issues, sure, non-issue and not a gender thing regardless. But at least a couple of men in my department have specifically and openly recruited other men in the office to move things when able women were right there. As in, calling me in another building several blocks away to bring a male buddy over to the other office because some boxes need moving. It's bizarre. They're older guys, both of 'em, I can see the "traditional" influence there, but wtf.
posted by cortex at 10:07 AM on May 30, 2008

There are no disadvantages to being a man, and everyone knows this (including the asker). The question was only asked to raise hackles.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:47 PM on May 29 [+] [!]

There are plenty - and the (now deleted) thread included many good examples.

Just because one gender has historically been held in a higher status position does not mean it has no disadvantages. Both gender roles are/were equally restrictive, despite the historic power imbalance.

In other words, the male gender has been granted more power/status, but that has come with some disadvatages (sort of penalty for power). What I see is that we worry a lot about changing the power balance between the sexes/genders, but at the same time little about also removing the disadvantages/restritions placed on males. For example, to pick on myself -- I believe that women and men should both be free to express their sexuality. But I have still often expected men to make the first advances and thus take the risks of rejection (which I am ashamed of). Similarly, our society is much more accepting of women who transgress gender lines than men, in dress or behaviour; a lot of the prejudice against gay men isn't so much about their gayness, but the fact that they defy the restrictions put on them as men.

It's important to think about these disadvatages so that in our effort to equalize the status of the two sexes/genders we don't end up looking only at the restrictions and problems for the female, and ignoring those for the male.
posted by jb at 10:17 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

I find the best response to a call for just men to carry something is to just stand up and take one corner of whatever needs to be lifted (or pick up a few boxes of whatever it is) and just carry on. It makes the point that I'm physically capable without requiring an argument about gender roles, and gets the whatsit moved in an efficient fashion. If they take the point, the next time they'll ask for volunteers in more general terms. If they don't take the point, an argument wouldn't have gotten through to them anyway.

I am not offended when men don't hold doors, let me into an elevator first, etc. (Except when it's a case of being shoved out of the way, which isn't a gender issue.) I do get a little annoyed when I'm offered the courtesy and I refuse it (for example, if I yield right-of-way and the male still won't move unless I go first) because at that point it's not a matter of being considerate to me but rather putting on a display. This is a little unfair to men who have no way of knowing in advance if the woman they're dealing with is one who'll be offended if they insist, or will be offended if they don't insist. (Which is why I either go along with it, or offer a a gentle "Oh, that's not necessary" in a suitably friendly tone.)
posted by Karmakaze at 10:29 AM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of feminism unless you're insecure about people taking a specific interest in studying things which women have experienced, or produced, or looking at gender issues from the perspective of women. I think it goes perfectly alongside humanism. I think if there was a lack of examining the male experience, it would be fine to examine it from the perspective of masculism, but it isn't currently necessary for there to be any kind of movement or field of study which brings energy, attention and scholarship to the male experience.

I am occasionally taken for a guy, and have both had the experience of a woman getting angry at me for not letting her get on the bus before I got off, and alternately, an older guy getting my gender right and being completely out of sorts because I held the door for him. I conclude from this that human interaction is complicated.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 10:29 AM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

So, logically, once we've given enough energy and attention to the female experience, all feminist movements will shut down.

That's some sexist bullshit you just said right there.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:35 AM on May 30, 2008

I'm amazed (reeeeeed: not surprised) that someone getting a crap question deleted on a blog has now turned into the SEXISM DEBATE OF THE CENTURY.

We'll literally find an argument in anything. Carry on.
posted by rooftop secrets at 11:00 AM on May 30, 2008

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of feminism unless you're insecure about people taking a specific interest in studying things which women have experienced, or produced, or looking at gender issues from the perspective of women.

I'm not insecure about that in the slightest. What I don't like is the implication that women are all that are important--patriarchal culture is just as damaging to men as to women, albeit in different ways. Equality is key, not adversarialism.

Which is why the whole concept of 'feminism' is sort of self-defeating. By which I mean the whole point is equality, yeah? So call it 'humanism' and work from there.

If you do that then no one on top gets to use identity politics to play arbitrary groups against each other and their own best interests.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim

Bingo.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:01 AM on May 30, 2008

I am occasionally taken for a guy, and have both had the experience of a woman getting angry at me for not letting her get on the bus before I got off, and alternately, an older guy getting my gender right and being completely out of sorts because I held the door for him. I conclude from this that human interaction is complicated.

I used to get that too when I had short hair. Well, I still get it on occasion for being tall. Only it was a female friend who got really disturbed when I held a door for her once. I am not in the habit of opening a door for all women as some more butch lesbians I know are, but I do tend to open the door for people with me when we're walking together if I come to the door first. Or I guess I used to. It got trained into me because it was the cultural norm at the college I attended, and the dynamic went both ways. But I walk a bit fast, so I guess I did a bit more opening than not. I didn't know I was even doing it, but now I've been made quite aware and have mostly stopped. I also battle with myself daily, now that I enter an office building each morning, to not say something rude to all the men I am not walking with who go out of their way to open doors for me. I know they mostly just intend to be polite, so for the sake of that, I am genuinely polite in return. But it is a choice each and every time. I'd rather they didn't do it unless I clearly had my arms full or something. Common courtesy, I appreciate, even though I've had to retrain mine quite a bit. But chivalry is really lost on me.

The car stopping for me to cross and street and then being impatient pisses me off. Nowadays I most often wave all cars on quite assertively. Often the drivers are being really stupid and not noticing the opposing traffic.
posted by Tehanu at 11:05 AM on May 30, 2008

So, logically, once we've given enough energy and attention to the female experience, all feminist movements will shut down.

No, I'm saying that the society as a whole is masculinist, and it becomes well-rounded by the addition of feminism, and well-rounded by the addition of perspectives which fall outside of those poles. I don't hope for a day when there is no distinction between genders; I think differences exist and that they make life interesting. I think things are most interesting when there is an equality of interest.

the SEXISM DEBATE OF THE CENTURY

Drama much? I see a conversation, but if you expect it to get crazy it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 11:08 AM on May 30, 2008

I have a proposal...

I endorse this proposal, and further suggest that it be placed atop the submittal form for MetaTalk. Preferably in a violent color, in very large type, with blinking arrows pointing to it.
posted by aramaic at 11:14 AM on May 30, 2008

I have a proposal. I propose that we put a huge fucking sign on top of AskMetafilter saying:

WELCOME TO ASK METAFILTER! WE ARE NOT MACHINES AND WILL NOT ALWAYS BE CONSISTENT! TRY TO TAKE IT IN STRIDE YOU CRAZY MOTHERFUCKERS!

Part of me thinks that might scare people away. The other part wants it to be a banner that scrolls across all of the subsites. Violently colored, as aramaic says.
posted by Tehanu at 11:17 AM on May 30, 2008

If I see someone on the other side of the parking lot, I'm not going to hold the door.

So that was you, Mister_A. I'm never talking to you again.
posted by never used baby shoes at 11:19 AM on May 30, 2008

it isn't currently necessary for there to be any kind of movement or field of study which brings energy, attention and scholarship to the male experience.

This is, of course, sexist bullshit. It comes from the "men are simple, easily understood creatures" school of thought.

Just because the study of females has been neglected does not mean the study of males is somehow a done thing.
posted by tkolar at 11:28 AM on May 30, 2008

No, I'm saying that the society as a whole is masculinist,

Which has jack shit all to do with the appropriateness of examining, discussing, evaluating, or changing masculine gender/sex roles, which I think have actually gotten less critical attention than feminine gender roles - as quick evidence, "women's studies" has over 7 million google results, "gender studies" over 4 million, "men's studies" about 300,000. Another example - the old dichotomy was the man goes out and works while the woman stays home. We've seen a lot more questioning of the woman staying home than of the man going to work, and I think the increased prevalence of two-career households has been pretty destructive. Having "gender studies" is a good start, but I think you could also lump in the African-American Studies, any Gay Studies, and so on (it's all interrelated) and have maybe "identity studies" or "experience studies" examining, deconstructing, and tearing down ALL of them.

Additionally, while you could argue that the masculine identity has been implicitly studied "enough," there's two kinds of learning - global and individual. I don't think too many mathematicians will be putting out papers on basic calculus, but it's still taught in the schools.

I don't hope for a day when there is no distinction between genders;

I do, almost. I hope for a day where the shape of your package, whose package you're attracted to, and the color of your skin are about as important as if you have hazel eyes or brown eyes (neglecting correlation of eye color to race.), or if you like asparagus. I think that might be the only way these problems would end.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:32 AM on May 30, 2008

No, I'm saying that the male experience and things guys did was the default focus and perspective of most scholarship and cultural attention until very recently. It doesn't say anything about whether men are complex, but I think it would imply that the male experience is complex enough to have sustained the majority of scholarship in human history so far.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 11:34 AM on May 30, 2008

Which has jack shit all to do with the appropriateness of examining, discussing, evaluating, or changing masculine gender/sex roles, which I think have actually gotten less critical attention than feminine gender roles - as quick evidence, "women's studies" has over 7 million google results, "gender studies" over 4 million, "men's studies" about 300,000. Another example - the old dichotomy was the man goes out and works while the woman stays home. We've seen a lot more questioning of the woman staying home than of the man going to work, and I think the increased prevalence of two-career households has been pretty destructive. Having "gender studies" is a good start, but I think you could also lump in the African-American Studies, any Gay Studies, and so on (it's all interrelated) and have maybe "identity studies" or "experience studies" examining, deconstructing, and tearing down ALL of them.

OK, we have a basic disagreement about the meaning of what you're describing (or, how you are reframing what I described) which I can live with. I think if you re-read my original post, you will see that I'm not of the "men are teh oppressors who are just jealously butthurt" school, or being played by shadowy powerful figures who want me to manipulate me into hating other groups by the use of identity politics. I think that there are disadvantages/hardships to being a straight guy, and that feminism is worthy, and that it may at some point not be necessary to label it as such because an interest in what women do may at some point become as naturally presumed as an interest in what men do has always been.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 11:44 AM on May 30, 2008

Have I brought up the story of monkey orgasms before on Mefi? I don't know. But I like the Monkey Orgasm story, and it relates to the current topic a bit, so let me tell it.

First, I should note, this isn't my story, and maybe I've gotten confused on the details. But it's a fairly well-known story, if I'm not mistaken. I read it in a piece on feminism in the study of biology (it can be located in the anthology on the philosophy of biology, edited by Elliott Sober, but I don't remember the rest. MeMail me if you demand that I go find more details). It is also probably not actually about monkeys. Maybe it was about bonobos, but I don't remember. I'll stick with monkeys.

So, Author was talking to Excited Young Researcher about the nature of his work. Researcher was studying the nature of female monkey orgasms, and he was so thrilled about his methodology. He had come up with a device which could measure the excitement of certain monkey-parts, and so they would know when female monkey orgasms were being had. "Fantastic!" claimed Author, "How does this device work?" The Researcher then explained. The device was connected to the male monkeys, and they would be activated when the females and males were getting it on.

Author blinks. Author says, "But, wait, we all know that female monkeys engage in a considerable amount of homosexual behavior. What about any orgasms that arise from that?"

Researcher scoffed, shrugged: "We're only concerned with the orgasms that matter."
posted by Ms. Saint at 11:53 AM on May 30, 2008

Oh, I just want to make this crystal clear in response to the identity politics/whining accusations: I'm female and queer. I'm not a dude scrambling to defend his privilege by whining about how bad he's got it, or a dude who who is trying to carve out his own piece of the identity politics cake. I work in a predominantly male industry, and more of my friends have been men than women, and I've just noticed that they have their own burdens (and DNAB, I agree that sexism is very much a burden for straight men at the same time that it offers them benefits in exchange), and the idea that they don't struck me as odd.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 11:56 AM on May 30, 2008

providing you weren't standing in the offices of the Timbuktu Post-Informer.

Man, that used to be such a good paper. I remember the 243-part series they did on the history of the Sahara trade, and they used to have a regular "This Week at the Library of Cheick Zayni Baye of Boujbeha" feature. Now it's all "our readers pick the best date couscous in town" and "ten tips on keeping sand out of your wardrobe." Just another example of corporate media.
posted by languagehat at 12:28 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Well--and please, I'm not trying to stir up a shitstorm here--sexism does also give certain benefits (depending on how you look at it) to women as well. Not nearly as lucrative, generally, but there are some. So, saying that "yeah there's a burden but there are benefits in exchange" is kind of handwavy, really.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:29 PM on May 30, 2008

Yes, I agree. So much so that I've gone back into the past and posted something about a privilege women glean from sexism in response to you.

*waves hands*
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 12:36 PM on May 30, 2008

*swoons from reading all the smart, strong girls giving what for!*

I'm allowed to do that, right? I think...

Oh, why thank you, yes, a fainting couch!

*swoons properly, fainting dead away*

I do hope to live to see the day when smart, strong women merely being smart, strong women isn't even remotely unusual or exemplary, but until then, for now it makes me happy. Go, go, go!
posted by loquacious at 12:45 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

When somebody describes themselves, or soething they are saying, as politically incorrect, what they've actually communicated to me is that they're being a willfully offensive jerk with whom a conversation is not worth having.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:59 PM on May 30, 2008 [3 favorites]

Yes, I Approve of the fact that in this feminism thread we seem to be having some proper arguments and discussion instead of people falling over themselves to get offended, because, regarding smart, strong people of all types, Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley had it right - "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery / none but ourselves can free our minds."
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:00 PM on May 30, 2008

Wow, terrific discussion here, thanks for being open minded. I guess I'll close this up then.
posted by mathowie at 10:01 PM on May 29 [+] [!]

Bet you wish you'd gone with that impulse.
posted by nanojath at 1:06 PM on May 30, 2008

I'm offended that you think I need your approv--

No, kidding. But, I do disagree with you about the relative merit of the thinking in this thread compared to a couple of those long sexism threads. IMO most of this thread rode in on the short bus, while those threads featured lots of interesting, smart and heartfelt signal mixed in with the noise.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 1:11 PM on May 30, 2008

Yeah, I misspoke a bit - the other threads had the good discussion too, but in general on this site there is some butthurt and people looking for something to be offended about.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:19 PM on May 30, 2008

Well, if nothing else, I'm glad this thread provided you with another opportunity to use your favorite word.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 1:25 PM on May 30, 2008

jessamyn, I admire your technique.

My technique is a lot more sweary.

Oh, quick question for PeterMcDermott: HOW IS BABBY FORMED ?
posted by Mister_A at 1:32 PM on May 30, 2008

WELL, I'M NOT GLAD. FUCK THAT WORD. FUCK IT RIGHT IN THE BUTT.
posted by dersins at 1:34 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

dersins, don't be all butthurt, dude! Especially not jealously butthurt, I hear that's the worst.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 1:38 PM on May 30, 2008

Vocabulary word, butthurt thyself.
posted by cortex at 1:41 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

But, I do disagree with you about the relative merit of the thinking in this thread compared to a couple of those long sexism threads. IMO most of this thread rode in on the short bus

My irony meter just pegged.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:47 PM on May 30, 2008

My technique is a lot more sweary.

Are you by any chance a dude? One of these days I am waiting for one of those wavy hand dudes to explode right in front of me.
posted by jessamyn at 1:48 PM on May 30, 2008

Well, you're the one who introduced it into the context of this thread, not me.

LOLBUTTS
LOLBUTTHURT

(In general my position on vocabulary words, whether you look them up in Merriam Webster or Urban Dictionary, is that the majority of my writing should be words everyone understands, but the odd lesser-known word, when apropos, should be used and if someone doesn't know what it means they can go look it up. Yesterday I learned what a hellban was.)
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:53 PM on May 30, 2008

I have to cross the street at a sort of weird angle to get to the post office from my house. Sometimes when I'm about to cross, a car will come around the corner (fairly slowly, it's in a little town) see me on the sidewalk, slam on the brakes and then wave me on in this totally impatient "COME ON ALREADY" way. This is especially excellent if there is traffic coming the other way and it's really not a great time to cross the street in the first place.

I have no idea what part of the world you are in, but in WA state in the US it is a moving violation (eg: against the law) to not stop at a crosswalk if someone is at the curb.
posted by Riemann at 1:56 PM on May 30, 2008

It doesn't say anything about whether men are complex, but I think it would imply that the male experience is complex enough to have sustained the majority of scholarship in human history so far.

I think it's worth noting that the scholarship of gender issues is not some zero sum game, nor does an understanding of one gender in any way detract from an understanding of the other.
posted by shmegegge at 1:57 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Edit: Forgot to mention the other half, in that state there is also an implied crosswalk at every intersection that is not otherwise marked.
posted by Riemann at 1:58 PM on May 30, 2008

I have no idea what part of the world you are in

I live in 1950's New England where laws like this don't apply and we don't have crosswalks. I did live in Washington state for a long time though, that was some sweet street-crossing time....
posted by jessamyn at 2:02 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Is it still appropriate for me too wittily suggest "Steve Voltaire?!"? I waited about forty-five seconds too long in the last crazy out-of-control train wreck thread that the mods left open for forever, and the mods closed it just before I hit "post".

Me too, I was writing a nice long message of Approval for one of dios' points, and then I hit preview, and there was a comment saying time to close the thread, but it wasn't closed yet, and then I hit post, but by then it was closed.

So NEVER PREVIEW unless an overtime system for allowing comments to closed threads when the comment was hard-previewed before closing is implemented. Use the voice from TF2.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:03 PM on May 30, 2008

*waves embarrassedly at jessamyn*

I am feeling a bit better and less trigger-happy this morning.
posted by tracicle at 2:05 PM on May 30, 2008

But at least a couple of men in my department have specifically and openly recruited other men in the office to move things when able women were right there... [snip] They're older guys, both of 'em, I can see the "traditional" influence there, but wtf.

Whoa. Now wait a minute. As a former grip in the motion picture business, which is a glorified furniture mover, I think you are missing the dead obvious.

Yes, men have more upper body strength on average then women. If I have to move something heavy and I need help I'm not going to ask a 120lb woman because than means, me being lazy as hell, I will have to take 25-30% more of the weight of said heavy object than if I ask your average 175lb man.

When I was a grip we had women in the grip and electric department but when something very heavy had to be moved you maxed out the male muscle first before then asking the women to assist. It was simple efficiency and optimizing labor. Absolutely nothing to do with tradition or sexist assumptions.
posted by tkchrist at 2:07 PM on May 30, 2008

I assumed cortex was talking about moving boxes of paperwork or something. but then, I'm making an assumption.
posted by shmegegge at 2:15 PM on May 30, 2008

I don't know how I can hold this paradox in my head, that men and women are created equal, but some things (like yardwork) are men's jobs. Yet I do.
posted by desjardins at 2:24 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

I work in an insurance company. The heaviest things we move are, yeah, boxes of paperwork. People of both genders move stuff around every day, when there isn't some to-do about it.
posted by cortex at 2:29 PM on May 30, 2008

Oh, cortex, why must you lie to us so? In fact, that was three lies for the price of one!

To wit:

Lie # 1. I work in an insurance company.

Lie! You work at a website / on-line community.

Lie #2 The heaviest things we move are, yeah, boxes of paperwork.

Lie! Actually, the heaviest things you move are contentious threads.

Lie #3. People of both genders move stuff around every day, when there isn't some to-do about it..

Another dirty lile! In point of fact, people of both genders move stuff around every day especially when there is some big to-do about it.

When will this deceit end?
posted by dersins at 2:44 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

"Man, that used to be such a good paper. I remember the 243-part series they did on the history of the Sahara trade, and they used to have a regular "This Week at the Library of Cheick Zayni Baye of Boujbeha" feature. Now it's all "our readers pick the best date couscous in town" and "ten tips on keeping sand out of your wardrobe." Just another example of corporate media.

Oh, I stopped reading them when their editorial desk endorsed Romney.

(Apparently, Timbuktu is a bad spot for a newspaper.)
posted by klangklangston at 2:46 PM on May 30, 2008

.
posted by BrooklynCouch at 2:56 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Yes, men have more upper body strength on average then women. If I have to move something heavy and I need help I'm not going to ask a 120lb woman because than means, me being lazy as hell, I will have to take 25-30% more of the weight of said heavy object than if I ask your average 175lb man.
posted by tkchrist

That's fine tk - but I would like to point out that a great many women also weigh 175lbs (and have muscles), and all women can lift a lot more than a lot of people apparently think we can. (For instance, I can easily lift as much as my husband, and more than many slighter men.) How about working out what is best based on the people involved?

--------------

on a completely different note:

I like Chatfilter. I like the chance to discuss things that don't always have convenient articles to link to, but which are also not in my field and so I don't really get to think about extensively. The various metafilter posts on invisble backpacks (racial, gendered) have made me argue with myself and think and come to conclusions. When the discussion is good, it can be quite good -- regardless of the intentions of the original poster, the thread inquestion was shaping up to be interesting (more interesting than the other, actually, since the other was just repeating a lot of the hand-wavy vague invisible backpack stuff you can find on websites and which annoyingly conflate gender and race with class and don't investigate it well, where as the second thread was looking specifically at sex/gender).

I don't know if chatfilter could sustain a whole website, but its nice once and a while.
posted by jb at 3:25 PM on May 30, 2008

Sure, women are shorter than men on average. But a lot of women are tall! And many are also taller than specific other men. My insight is piercing.

This is the basis of all bad discussion.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:54 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

That's fine tk - but I would like to point out that a great many women also weigh 175lbs (and have muscles), and all women can lift a lot more than a lot of people apparently think we can. (For instance, I can easily lift as much as my husband, and more than many slighter men.) How about working out what is best based on the people involved?

*sigh*

An "average" 175lb man STILL has more muscle mass and upper body strength than an "average" 175lb woman. So when given the choice I may still go with the man.

I bet some where out there there is a highly conditioned or genetically anomalous 140lb woman who is twice as strong as the average 200lb man. I bet there is a six year old out there that can play Études-Tableaux by Rachmaninoff.

This may come as a surprise but I realize there are strong women. You know I once dated one of the top 20 women power lifters in North American. She even tried out for American Gladiators? Also my very first Martial Arts instructor and boxing coach was a woman. And... oh... on and on...

Do we have to qualify everything we post?

I don't think my comment was controversial enough to even warrant this comment. I know on the internet we have to be sensitive about generalizing but can we please dispense with this silly compulsion to dispute every so-called "generality." Especially when the exceptions prove the rule.

FTR - as a grip, Donna the key grip I worked with, was 120lbs. Soaking wet. If we had a 175lb muscular woman then maybe we would have used her. Rare as she obviously is in that business.
posted by tkchrist at 4:09 PM on May 30, 2008

My irony meter just pegged.

In my experience, someone who goes from 0-coprolalia as fast as you do when set off by something does not actually own an irony meter. But I apologize to actual developmentally disabled people who are participating in this thread for tarring them with the same brush as silly people who should know better.

TheOnlyCoolTim: I should have made it clearer that I was making fun of the phrase "jealously butthurt", not using it for its (formidable) descriptive powers.

I think it's worth noting that the scholarship of gender issues is not some zero sum game, nor does an understanding of one gender in any way detract from an understanding of the other.

It is worth noting this.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 4:11 PM on May 30, 2008

This is the basis of all bad discussion.

And arguments that go in infuriating circles.

Quick. Let's use this to moment to jump off to argue if there will ever be a woman Heavyweight UFC champ in some future co-ed division!
posted by tkchrist at 4:13 PM on May 30, 2008

I do believe that Metafilter is incapable of discussing gender issues in a way that does not end up with someone upset and stomping out of the room.

Can't we stick to things we all agree on like the awesomeness of Pancakes in a Can?
posted by Argyle at 4:16 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

Jeez. Can we please have one discussion without some guy coming in and changing the subject to his organic batter blaster?
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 4:31 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

(Apparently, Timbuktu is a bad spot for a newspaper.)

Nice link! But this gave me a chuckle:

I also visited the jail. I was impressed with how clean it was, and all the things available there such as medical care and a church. In my country, this is not possible. The jail looked more like a hotel to me.

Dude, they took you to the Doubletree and told you it was the town jail!
posted by languagehat at 5:04 PM on May 30, 2008

It had key cards and mints!
posted by klangklangston at 5:09 PM on May 30, 2008

I have in my hand something that is exponentially more awesome than pancakes in a can: a coneful of Chapman's Premium Apple Pie Ice Cream.

My eyes tell me I'm eating ice cream, but my mouth says pie. It's disconcerting, but in a highly delicious way. At first, my sensory awareness would oscillate rapidly between the two: "Pie!" "Ice cream!" "No, PIE!" "NO! ICE CREAM!!" Like some sort of mind-bending physics demonstration. Then the separate dessert-experience galaxies of Pie and of Ice Cream crashed and fused together, causing my mind to blissfully slur "Mmm... PieCream" to itself.

Now it's starting to melt, so I must get back to OM NOMNOMNOM-ing it out of existence.
posted by CKmtl at 5:31 PM on May 30, 2008

So, suddenly I'm in this politeness obligation trap with mister grumpy-wavey-hands to please get on with it and cross the road that he has so graciously backed up traffic on (only) half of for me. Pickup trucks whiz by going the other direction.

Unless there is bumper-to-bumper traffic, I do not and will not succumb to grumpy-wavy-man if he legally has the right of way. I have several techniques. Sometimes I slowly shake my head while keeping my expression as blank as possible. Sometimes I pretend like I don't see him and stare off into the distance. Sometimes I just go ahead and turn my back to him. I don't like being impolite, but I'm not going to walk into traffic just to be polite. (Of course also in this situation I almost always would have been able to cross sooner, even without the time-wasting politeness stand-off, if they'd just driven through).
posted by lampoil at 5:38 PM on May 30, 2008

At first, my sensory awareness would oscillate rapidly between the two: "Pie!" "Ice cream!" "No, PIE!" "NO! ICE CREAM!!"

Dude, just think of it as "picecream." Problem solved.
posted by dersins at 5:44 PM on May 30, 2008

OK. Thankfully this thing has about run its course so I'm gonna go ahead and shut in down...oh, damn.
posted by dawson at 5:48 PM on May 30, 2008

My irony meter just pegged.

FYI: That's illegal in Texas
posted by tkchrist at 5:51 PM on May 30, 2008 [2 favorites]

> women can't fertilize eggs. See?

Actually, this is false, we can with a little help from science. It's just not (often) practiced and would only produced female offspring. it has been done.
posted by dabitch at 6:13 PM on May 30, 2008

@dirtynumbangelboy: So call it 'humanism' and work from there.

Humanism is already a term that is taken, and it does not mean solely a work for equality among all humans, but has specific philosophical and religious implications that complicate the term.

Aside from that issue, the reason "feminism" works for me is that it is about righting inequalities that are gender oriented, and where women still clearly get the short end of the stick. You do realize, I hope, that we still have salary gaps, that there are well-established (in social sciences, politics, education, etc.) phenomena that perpetuate the issues in sexism that most feminists fight to resolve? Or do you?
posted by kalessin at 6:24 PM on May 30, 2008

As for the elevator/door opening thing, I just open doors for people. Gender is pretty irrelevant.

I do too. In fact, in my experience, I see people opening doors for other people all the time. It's just the polite thing to do.

Just yesterday, I had a rare gender-related door-opening experience. When I was leaving the butcher shop, there was a older gentleman behind me who had a large box full of the "Summer Grill Pack" (about 40 pounds of meat sold as package deal). Since his load was more cumbersome than mine, I stepped aside and held the door open for him. As he was passing, he said "Well, now, this just doesn't seem right, but thank you." I thought it was quaint and cute.
posted by amyms at 6:47 PM on May 30, 2008

In my experience, someone who goes from 0-coprolalia as fast as you do when set off by something does not actually own an irony meter.

Wow, from douchebag to doucheluggage in one swift step. Well done.

But I apologize to actual developmentally disabled people who are participating in this thread for tarring them with the same brush as silly people who should know better.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand that would be you not. getting. it.

Aside from that issue, the reason "feminism" works for me is that it is about righting inequalities that are gender oriented, and where women still clearly get the short end of the stick.

Yes, but unity works better than divisiveness.

You do realize, I hope, that we still have salary gaps, that there are well-established (in social sciences, politics, education, etc.) phenomena that perpetuate the issues in sexism that most feminists fight to resolve? Or do you?

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Otherwise I'd be forced to think you were a complete idiot.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:11 PM on May 30, 2008

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Otherwise I'd be forced to think you were a complete idiot.

Pretending doesn't seem difficult for you.
posted by Brian B. at 10:25 PM on May 30, 2008 [1 favorite]

And what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:48 PM on May 30, 2008

Wow, from douchebag to doucheluggage in one swift step.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand that would be you not. getting. it.
Otherwise I'd be forced to think you were a complete idiot.

I rest my case.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 1:43 AM on May 31, 2008

@dirtynumbangelboy: I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Otherwise I'd be forced to think you were a complete idiot.

Prove me wrong, then, otherwise I'll be forced to think that because you don't have a good, factual argument to respond with, you decided to resort to an ad hominem.
posted by kalessin at 3:52 AM on May 31, 2008

I rest my case.

Ah, right.. you act poorly, but I'm the badguy for pointing it out?

Here's the thing. You blithered on about sexism, while simultaneously being discriminatory yourself. That's a douchebag thing to do. And then when you get called on it, you respond with more insults. Sorry.. could you refresh my memory? Which one of us here was the jerk? I'm pretty certain it wasn't me--usually the jerk is the person who goes first with the jerky behaviour. I could be wrong, I guess, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. So you resort to insults instead of actually saying "You're right, it was wrong of me to complain about one sort of discrimination while employing another". Your mealy-mouthed 'apology' doesn't cut it, btw.

Prove me wrong, then, otherwise I'll be forced to think that because you don't have a good, factual argument to respond with, you decided to resort to an ad hominem.

Take a look through my posting history. I should think I have made it monumentally fucking clear that I'm aware of sexism, as well as all sorts of other forms of discrimination. You started with the ad hominems by accusing me of not being aware that sexism exists.

And I note that neither of you bothered to respond to the idea that unity--as in working together, aka power-with (to use Starhawk's phrase) instead of power-over--is a vastly more effective way of getting things done. The divisiveness inspired by large chunks of the feminist movement is highly depressing, and only serves to alienate people from each other.

I'm not saying, of course, that the feminist movement is all bad. Nor am I saying that women should have to suck up to men in order to attain equality. Both of those things would be patently ridiculous. What I am saying is that excluding half of the human race from the equasion--which many chunks of the feminist movement do, either explicitly or implicitly--is pretty silly, since most of us with dangly bits are with you in seeing that equality is obviously the only way to go.

Yes, of course, there need to be women-only spaces, just as there need to be queer-only spaces, and person-of-colour-only spaces, and (please, please bear with me here) eventually male-only spaces; people do, sometimes, need to be surrounded by only their own kind in order to find a certain comfort level with being able to speak and act. It is, of course, when those groups become detrimental to others that we have a problem. But the movement as a whole would benefit greatly from 'reaching across the aisle', as it were; strength in unity is much, much greater than strength by division.

But hey, I'm only a gay man, what would I know about discrimination or oppression? Clearly I would have no clue.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:41 AM on May 31, 2008

@dirtynumbangelboy:

Tell you what. You and I both back down and call it quits and injuries due to friendly fire and vocabulary troubles.

I'll go look at your posting history if you look at mine.
posted by kalessin at 11:04 AM on May 31, 2008

I don't need to look at yours--I didn't insult your character. You insulted mine. I'll call it quits when you apologize.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:13 AM on May 31, 2008

Hit post too soon.

Because, frankly, saying it's 'vocabulary troubles' is ridiculous. You flat-out insulted me.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:14 AM on May 31, 2008

Maybe you two can take this insulting and counter-insulting to email?
posted by jessamyn at 11:15 AM on May 31, 2008

Yuck. Take the olive branch and put your dicks away, gentlemen.
posted by desuetude at 11:26 AM on May 31, 2008 [1 favorite]

desuetude, I don't view it as an olive branch when someone refuses to acknowledge what they said was wrong and hurtful.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:31 PM on May 31, 2008

Are you fucking kidding? You weren't attacked at all, and then you responded by calling someone an idiot, slapping away the conciliatory hand that was offered you, and acting like you were being martyred for the great and glorious cause of... of what, exactly, again?
posted by dersins at 12:51 PM on May 31, 2008

dersins, kalessin (quite condescendingly) implied that I have no knowledge of the fact that sexism against women exists. You may not view that as an insult, but I do.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:05 PM on May 31, 2008

male-only spaces

aren't these called sports bars?
posted by desjardins at 1:31 PM on May 31, 2008

well played, desjardins.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:49 PM on May 31, 2008

I was going to say bathhouses but I didn't want you to take it the wrong way.
posted by desjardins at 2:06 PM on May 31, 2008

huh? plenty of my dyke mates are into sports bras.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:38 PM on May 31, 2008

acting like you were being martyred for the great and glorious cause of... of what, exactly, again?

Being agreed with, but not deferentially enough.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 2:46 PM on May 31, 2008

YTMS, tell me.. did you have to work hard to be that obtuse? That's not what I'm upset about, and you know it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:13 PM on May 31, 2008

Is this how things normally work? A mod deletes a question for being chatfilter, someone complains about it here, everyone agrees with the mod decision... and then they proceed to have the original discussion right here in meta that would otherwise have been in the deleted thread?

Sure is chatfilter though, it turns out...
posted by standbythree at 5:15 PM on May 31, 2008 [1 favorite]

I tend to pretend turn and wander a different direction, pretending I'm not actually interested in crossing the street. It works pretty well.
posted by Arturus at 9:22 PM on May 31, 2008

dersins, kalessin (quite condescendingly) implied that I have no knowledge of the fact that sexism against women exists. You may not view that as an insult, but I do.

Oh my fucking god are you really so delicate? Grow a fucking hide, dude.
posted by dersins at 10:07 PM on May 31, 2008

An "average" 175lb man STILL has more muscle mass and upper body strength than an "average" 175lb woman. So when given the choice I may still go with the man.

I know it's just anecdotal, but I brought it up because I recently helped a friend move, and wasted a lot of stupid time trying to convince the other people (both men and women) that I knew perfectly well what I could lift and what I could not lift. It was very annoying - I mean, they could see that I could lift the boxes, as well as the fact that I was about twice the size of the other women there (who knew that they couldn't). I actually have little upper body strength - but I find much of lifting is in the thighs and back. Or it should be - you really should be lifting with your back when things are heavy.

So, how about dividing your world into 120-lb people and 175-lb people?

Using gender to divide people in non-gender situations is like using height to work out gender, for bathrooms, for instance - sure, you might be right for the AVERAGE, but you'd still be wrong enough of the time to cause problems.
posted by jb at 12:10 AM on June 1, 2008

That would be your lifting world, not your bathroom world.
posted by jb at 12:10 AM on June 1, 2008

did you have to work hard to be that obtuse?
W e l l, s o r t o f .
posted by aramaic at 1:30 AM on June 1, 2008

Goddammit, misaligned secondary tri-thrust devices! Fucking oil-crusted bastards!
posted by aramaic at 1:48 AM on June 1, 2008

dabitch, is that what's going on in Wickerman?
posted by Mister_A at 6:16 AM on June 1, 2008

Huh? Wickerman is about a pagan society ruled by Lord Summerisle, absolutely rife with phalluses. Sure, the leading man's a virgin...
posted by owhydididoit at 8:11 AM on June 1, 2008

Oops, forgot about the remake. Oh yeah, hey, is this perhaps another disadvantage of being a man?
posted by owhydididoit at 10:28 AM on June 1, 2008

I believe that is actually one of the disadvantages of being a Volkswagen Beetle.
posted by cortex at 10:34 AM on June 1, 2008

Why do you leap to the assumption that Volkswagen is not consenting?
posted by tkolar at 12:45 PM on June 1, 2008

sure, you might be right for the AVERAGE, but you'd still be wrong enough of the time to cause problems.

No I wouldn't. And when the issue is heavy lifting and comparative efficient use of innate strength of the genders it IS a "gender situation." And frankly this debate is beyond goofy. Have at it on your own.
posted by tkchrist at 2:24 PM on June 1, 2008

And when the issue is heavy lifting and comparative efficient use of innate strength of the genders it IS a "gender situation."

If you're making broad comparisons about average strength, sure. But when a woman is lifting a box correctly and is clearly strong enough to do so, it's damn insulting to hear "leave it to the men! You'll hurt yourself!!"
posted by desuetude at 6:00 PM on June 1, 2008

I can't remember the last time I had to use my penis to lift something.

But I'll be damned if I don't every once and awhile anyway.
posted by ODiV at 9:54 PM on June 1, 2008

"Once in a while," ODiv

I use my penis to haul loads of ore out of iron mines. THAT IS BECAUSE I AM MANLY MAN.

Oh shit, I'm late for the SATC movie. BRB.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:09 PM on June 1, 2008

In case anyone still cares, I've blogged the whole thing here.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:41 AM on June 4, 2008

Ugh, Jesus. I've replied over there, Jaltcoh. Your refusal to separate your disappointment with your question getting deleted from your certainty that it must have been for the reasons you presume is really, really frustrating and makes for some pretty disingenuous blog theater. You could have shared the stuff you liked from the question without perpetuating the strawman grudge.
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on June 4, 2008

Something ate your reply, cortex - I see "0 comments" following the rant.
posted by flabdablet at 8:06 AM on June 4, 2008

He does moderated comments rather than a captcha, which is a legit and rational approach to blogspot spam management. Don't read anything into it, please.
posted by cortex at 8:12 AM on June 4, 2008

cortex, again.
posted by tkolar at 9:27 AM on June 4, 2008

In case anyone still cares, I've blogged the whole thing here.

The latter cancels out the former.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:28 AM on June 4, 2008

I dunno. He approved my first comment, and I'm inclined to think he'll approve the second as well at some point.

Jaltcoh just seems to fail at Metafilter.

And that's the thing—as far as I can tell, Jaltcoh, you don't seem to fail at Metafilter. More specifically, at AskMe, where you've answered a bunch of questions helpfully and seem to have the best of intentions in general. I pointed out above that you seem not to have spent any real time in Metatalk itself, though, which is part of what makes your certainty about what we as moderators do and why we do it so danged frustrating to encounter.

You seem to be willing to operate off of first-blush impressions here (impressions formed, no less, while you were freshly angered? impassioned? whatever emotion you were feeling upon having your question deleted), and to be batting away any countered explanation on pretty thin, unqualified pretense instead of giving us anything like the benefit of the doubt and really making an effort to acquaint yourself with past history on AskMe deletions, and that's hard to deal with because you're not remotely meeting halfway here.
posted by cortex at 10:59 AM on June 4, 2008

Insta-linked!
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:44 AM on June 4, 2008

I would briefly bother to comment, but when justifying moderation, in the face of compliants about moderation, with lines such as, "People can disagree with me all they want -- I'd never censor people on that basis -- but I want to at least have some basic standards of quality, decorum, etc.," I fear that any disagreement that pointed out the irony would coincidentally not meet those standards of decorum (the fig-leaf of which is often used as rhetorical control). Jaltcoh just seems to fail at Metafilter.

So, wait a minute. I just want to make sure about this. You're criticizing me for my criticisms of the decision to delete my AskMetafilter question ... but you're also preemptively criticizing me because you imagine that I would delete your comment on my blog if you were to post a comment? I'm getting a little dizzy just contemplating all the layers of self-referentiality and self-contradiction.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:49 AM on June 4, 2008

Insta-linked!

That you are so proud of this as to brag about it here says volumes about you.
posted by dersins at 11:53 AM on June 4, 2008

Can I put a "." down for this thread please?
posted by josher71 at 11:59 AM on June 4, 2008

"So, wait a minute. I just want to make sure about this. You're criticizing me for my criticisms of the decision to delete my AskMetafilter question ... but you're also preemptively criticizing me because you imagine that I would delete your comment on my blog if you were to post a comment? I'm getting a little dizzy just contemplating all the layers of self-referentiality and self-contradiction."

As my comment would likely involve the word "bullshit," and in seeing your smug self-justifications, I felt that you were too much a lily-of-the-valley to bother engaging you on your blog, especially given the fair likelyhood that the criticism would both fall upon deaf ears and never see the light of day (if I may mix my metaphors like martinis).

But yes, I should imagine you easily dizzied, as you've not been able to follow the straight-forward comments of the mods here without conflating them into a conspiracy to silence you.
posted by klangklangston at 12:09 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

hang on. I get it.

jaltcoh is some conservative sexist blogger and he's trying to drum up controversy for pagehits. peace. i'm out.
posted by shmegegge at 12:16 PM on June 4, 2008

Metafilter is diminshed by this whole business. Nowhere in this thread is there a single convincing explanation about why the original thread was closed.

It was perfectly reasonable for Jaltcoh to start this thread to ask about the deletion, and when no good answer was forthcoming, to draw his own conclusions. It was also perfectly reasonable for him to blog about his experience outside Metafilter.

It really does look like it was done simply out of a conscious or unconscious desire to censor the expression of ideas that the moderators don't like. That is the clear impression that any outsider would get from reading this metatalk thread. It surely was deleted in haste and without much thought; and then there was a failed attempt at a rushed post-hoc rationalisation here in the grey.

To those moderators, I would suggest that if you aren't able to articulate a sensible reason for your actions - and so far, you haven't - , and instead find yourself getting angry and defensive - which you demonstrably have - then you probably made a bad decision.
posted by standbythree at 12:37 PM on June 4, 2008

GENDER DISCUSSIONS and Metafilter censorship?

Gotta love the complete divorce from context and site policy. Mefi and its naughty, censoring ways.

Note: censorious, while sounding better in that sentence, seems to mean something very different. Help! I am my own pedant but I forget words.
posted by Tehanu at 12:39 PM on June 4, 2008

AskMe is for asking questions, not making a point. What more needs to be said other than that? And it's been said, pretty clearly and early in this thread.
posted by Tehanu at 12:41 PM on June 4, 2008

Glennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Reynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnolds!

Indeed.

Heh.

Read the whole thing.

Indeed.

Glennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Reynnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnolds!
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:44 PM on June 4, 2008

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you're Ann Althouse's son. I was wondering if that was a coincidence.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:46 PM on June 4, 2008

You have a limited amount of time on this planet. Is this how you really want to spend it?
posted by tkolar at 12:52 PM on June 4, 2008

It was perfectly reasonable for Jaltcoh to start this thread to ask about the deletion, and when no good answer was forthcoming, to draw his own conclusions.

No satisfying answer. No answer that he agreed with. That he had drawn his own conclusions before he started the thread, and ignored all of the answers as not supporting those conclusions, is his right but not what I would describe as "reasonable".

It was also perfectly reasonable for him to blog about his experience outside Metafilter.

Again, it's his right. It was kind of an asshole move, if you ask me, but so goes the blogosphere.

It really does look like it was done simply out of a conscious or unconscious desire to censor the expression of ideas that the moderators don't like.

Why does it look like that? Because we actually explained why we did it, and he didn't like the explanation? Because I actually agreed with him about the very notion that he's then claiming we were trying to sweep under the rug?

I don't mind being disagreed with. Being a mod here pretty much means never having everyone agree with you on any given thing. What I do mind is the easy, comfortable slide from "I disagree with your reasons for deletion" to "you're clearly a bigot". That's poison. It's badly, badly twisted reasoning.
posted by cortex at 1:29 PM on June 4, 2008

Cortex, I hope I didn't seem to suggest you were a "bigot" because I certainly don't think that. And being a moderator anywhere is a recipe for misery - I know from first hand experience. Jaltcoh clearly came here with prejudices. But then, so did I. And you. And everyone else.

The real question, a very minor one at the end of the day, is whether or not moderator prejudices led to one marginal thread being given the benefit of the doubt, and another not? I really think that's what happened. And I don't think it's a problem.

I think it would be cathartic to say, "Yes, both of these threads should probably have been deleted, but we left the first one in place because we kind of liked it."
posted by standbythree at 1:36 PM on June 4, 2008

I think it would be cathartic to say, "Yes, both of these threads should probably have been deleted, but we left the first one in place because we kind of liked it."

My response is more like this (and I commented over there too) "Yes, both of these threads maybe should have been deleted, but we saw the first one after it had gotten going and it had marginally more justification than the second one which showed up in a context that already included the first question and seemed just a hair chattier and listier and just an excuse to discuss a topic and not to solve a problem." I don't honestly care about the topic one way or the other and I disagree with the assertion that the first question was about how it's tough to be a woman.
posted by jessamyn at 1:46 PM on June 4, 2008

Yeah, honestly, it's not like that's even far from what I actually did say in the first place. Replace "should probably have been" with "could definitely have been" and you've more or less got the first paragraph of my initial comment.

We could have justifiably deleted the first thread as chatfilter. We decided not to, since it was right on the fence and the wind blew that way and we felt optimistic that it would all turn out okay. In retrospect, it's turned into a damned mess, which sucks. If I had a crystal ball, yes: we would have deleted it, and saved ourselves a headache. But we don't have that luxury.

Cortex, I hope I didn't seem to suggest you were a "bigot" because I certainly don't think that.

No, I don't think that you think that. The circus over at Jaltcoh's blog, I'm not so clear on, but home court advantage and all that. I'm wondering if it's a lost cause in that sense. But what I was responding to you on is this:

It really does look like it was done simply out of a conscious or unconscious desire to censor the expression of ideas that the moderators don't like.

Which, honestly, is disheartening. It may be that it's impossible to get away from the priming of someone saying "these two similar things were dealt with differently and thus Bias X is responsible" for an introduction, but when overt explanations of (a) the totally-unrelated actual reasons for the deletions and (b) our own sympathy for the idea we allegedly don't like aren't sufficient to turn that around, yikes.
posted by cortex at 2:05 PM on June 4, 2008

"Metafilter is diminshed by this whole business. Nowhere in this thread is there a single convincing explanation about why the original thread was closed."

Tonight on Flawed Conclusions Come From Flawed Premises, or "Sez You, Chief"…
posted by klangklangston at 2:09 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]

Apparently one of the disadvantages of being a man is that it's hard to avoid coming across like a complete booger-head.
posted by flabdablet at 2:15 AM on June 5, 2008

Follow up.
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:09 AM on June 5, 2008

Oh, and for anyone who wants to see an extended back-and-forth over this in which cortex has posted numerous long comments, don't miss the comments here. I have nothing to add to the many comments over there that thoroughly debunk cortex's points.
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:14 AM on June 5, 2008

You're priceless! Do they sell you in a travel size?
posted by shmegegge at 9:22 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

Debunk cortex's comments? What is he, an alien crash site rumor? I think you mean refute.

(isn't it great when you've been blogging long enough to quote yourself?):

It bet it is great.
posted by Tehanu at 9:40 AM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

But you've made it fairly obvious you're just a right wing troll.

You forgot self-aggrandizing and attention-whoring.

But, y'know, I think he's like fourteen years old, so perhaps he should be forgiven. Either way, I'll bet if we ignore him he'll go away.
posted by dersins at 10:06 AM on June 5, 2008

did I actually forget to hit "post" on my long comment on your blog Jaltcoh, or has it not been approved yet?
posted by jessamyn at 10:24 AM on June 5, 2008

Also stop with the google-bombing please, it's distasteful.
posted by jessamyn at 10:25 AM on June 5, 2008

Oh hey look, I fucking called it.
posted by shmegegge at 10:46 AM on June 5, 2008

Also stop with the google-bombing please, it's distasteful.

Seriously. I'm pretty frustrated with Jaltcoh's handling of this whole thing, but don't go there. Nixed waraw's, delinked dersins'. If that's not cool with you, dersins, I'll just kill the comment instead.
posted by cortex at 11:08 AM on June 5, 2008

No it's cool. I shouldn't have done it in the first place; I just got carried away by my irritation at his disingenuousness and his the way he really seems to be going about this whole thing in pretty bad faith.

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I guess.
posted by dersins at 11:23 AM on June 5, 2008

Yeah, sorry.
posted by waraw at 11:24 AM on June 5, 2008

Haven't seen my comment show up, but here's most of it:

There are two things to consider here:

The first is, especially if you are unfamiliar with Metafilter (and even moreso if you venerate Rawls) is to understand the model of moderation not as a purely civil law situation, where bright lines are drawn between legal and illegal, but a system based on consensus, debate and probability. It is guided moderation, not legalistic moderation, which means that those who seek purely rational explanations often see inconsistencies. That Jac's question came as a "me-too" increases the probability that it will be deleted as a "double," though that particular prohibition is somewhat softened on AskMe over MeFi proper. From there, the fact that it is chatfilter (a survey question without a specific goal; a question which nearly anyone can answer; a question in which determining the validity of the answers is suspect) also increases its likelyhood of deletion. Those are the two primary determinations, as have been outlined multiple times by the moderators.

From there, it's foolish to argue that the first question should have been deleted in the service of consistency—the first question already existed, and had narrowly scraped through. That a question was not deleted is not proof that it was perfect or that questions like it should not receive increased scrutiny. In fact, that increased scrutiny contributed to the deletion of the second question. Again, the mods said that the first question was a toss-up. Think of the questions as dependent draws: the first question had a one-in-four chance of drawing a heart and surviving. The second question had a 12/51 chance of drawing a heart and surviving. That the second question did not draw a heart is not an invalidation of the odds. And given the large corpus of transparent moderation discussion available through Metatalk, you can establish odds given these dependent variables.

The second point is that throughout the initial Metatalk thread and this blog post/comments section, both Jac and supporters have engaged in an ad hominem fallacy, arguing that the supposed biases of the Metafilter mods are the cause of the deletion. Really? Where's the evidence of prior acts that would confirm this as a pattern of behavior? Where are the other deletions of men's questions about feminism or gender discrepancy? Where are the deletions of posts to the Blue based purely on the difficulty of the subject matter? Where are the closed MeTa complaints?

No, the allegations of some sort of discrimination against the CHALLENGING OPINIONS are lazy, self-congratulatory bullshit. They respect neither context nor content, they have no evident basis beyond the stung feelings and petulant carping of men who believe themselves put-upon. This could have been an interesting discussion, but not from such circular thinkers.
posted by klangklangston at 11:29 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

did I actually forget to hit "post" on my long comment on your blog Jaltcoh, or has it not been approved yet?

Only Jaltcoh can say for sure, Jess, but I did manage I think to pitch one of my comments yesterday into browser /dev/null rather than the moderation queue thanks to the slightly weird preview-auth-warning hoops blogspot sometimes throws up.

Jaltcoh, can you verify whether Jessamyn's comment ever made it to your moderation queue? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt on that since you were at least addressing unapproved comments near the top of the thread, but a little piece of mind would be nice.
posted by cortex at 11:41 AM on June 5, 2008

I don't know thing one about the rules of the blogosphere, and this thread just resurfaced for me, so someone help me out here: if jaltcoh is going to use my comments from AskMe, in fractured-to-mimic-multiple-speakers format, in any endeavor that slags MY BELOVED Metafilter, I want them gone. Pulled. Don't quote me and for fucking sure don't misquote me if you're gonna be a douche to cortex and jessamyn. Yes I have the politics of a fourth grader. How do I get him to gimme my crayons back?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:01 PM on June 5, 2008

but a little piece of mind would be nice.
posted by cortex

Of course it's a typo, but . . . tee hee hee.
posted by cgc373 at 12:24 PM on June 5, 2008

Jaltcoh, can you verify whether Jessamyn's comment ever made it to your moderation queue?

If she posted under "jessamyn" or referred to herself as jessamyn, then I'm pretty sure I didn't reject it. As you can see, I've accepted tons of cortex posts in my thread -- I welcome the attention from mefi mods. So jessamyn, I didn't intend to reject a comment from you, and obviously you're free to repost. I've had lots of comments posted to that post and I approve each one by hand, so it's possible I messed up, or it's possible it's a Blogger glitch (Blogger is certainly rife with glitches, so it wouldn't surprise me).

If jessamyn posted under a different name that I wouldn't have recognized as her, it's possible I deleted it -- I have been vigorously deleting comments on my blog that I don't think add to the discussion, e.g. repeating over and over that people should read the Mefi FAQ, which is a point that's been made clear already. (Of course, I don't delete things just because I disagree -- again, I've left up all cortex's comments.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:46 PM on June 5, 2008

I have been vigorously deleting comments on my blog

Careful, you'll go blind!
posted by dersins at 12:50 PM on June 5, 2008

Yeah I post as Jessamyn pretty much everywhere including there. I don't feel any inclination to repost.
posted by jessamyn at 12:51 PM on June 5, 2008

jessamyn: I'm sorry your post got lost. I have all the comments saved in my email and have searched for "jessamyn" -- didn't turn up anything from you. If it had been submitted, I would still have the full text, in which case I would have sent you the text so you could quickly re-post it. It's just not there.

dersins: Thanks for the tip.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:55 PM on June 5, 2008

And noting that my comment, which I posted above, didn't make it into the "approved" list, yeah, I'm gonna say that I was right and you're full of shit.
posted by klangklangston at 1:27 PM on June 5, 2008

Jaltcoh: acknowledge. Do you copy?

I want my words taken out of your blog. I read your thread and I am not about to comment in such a politically sphomoric, poisonous and inadequately moderated venue. "To hell with the feminists?" Why would I put my words or my name up in such a nasty place? I keep to this walled citadel, with its reasonable leaders who ALWAYS, in my experience, work to be fair, honest and nurturing to the community and knowledge. Your discourse is bad and you should feel bad.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:42 PM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

if jaltcoh is going to use my comments from AskMe, in fractured-to-mimic-multiple-speakers format, in any endeavor that slags MY BELOVED Metafilter, I want them gone. Pulled. Don't quote me and for fucking sure don't misquote me ... I want my words taken out of your blog. ... Your discourse is bad and you should feel bad.

You're saying that I misquoted you? No, I didn't. But you misquoted me in throwing out the sentence "To hell with the feminists?" with no attribution, implying I said it. I didn't say it, and I would never say it because it goes against what I believe in.

I don't think I did anything wrong in quoting you from an AskMetafilter thread, and I don't see the relevance of the fact that you disagree with other things I said in my post that were not even in that block quote.

I do agree with you that you lack an understanding of how the blogosphere works. Blogs quote things from websites -- it's not implying an endorsement of the whole blog post by the person quoted.

I also don't appreciate being told I "should feel bad"! I'm continually amazed at how the internet seems to make people think it's OK to say things they'd never say in real life.

I noticed some people have been trying to communicate with me in this thread. Just so you know, the ways to reach me would be email, MefiMail, or comments on my blog. I haven't read most of this thread, and I don't intend to read any more of it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:55 PM on June 5, 2008

Then stop posting here!
posted by Burhanistan at 2:57 PM on June 5, 2008

I don't think I did anything wrong in quoting you from an AskMetafilter thread, and I don't see the relevance of the fact that you disagree with other things I said in my post that were not even in that block quote.

Jaltcoh, you seem to have some blind spots as to how things work as well. Now that AV is asking you to not involve her in your blog post, the classy thing to do is to comply and remove the quote. If you must, I suppose you could paraphrase.
posted by desuetude at 3:04 PM on June 5, 2008

I'm continually amazed at how the internet seems to make people think it's OK to say things they'd never say in real life.

for what it's worth, although I'm not AV I'd say that to you in real life. Among other things.
posted by shmegegge at 3:05 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

I haven't read most of this thread, and I don't intend to read any more of it.

You do not understand how community blogs work, then. Of course people are addressing you here. You started this thread, it's about you, and you're linking back and forth quite a bit. You started a community discussion, not a private email conversation.

Just so you know, the ways to reach me would be email, MefiMail, or comments on my blog.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to think shmegegge is right. Nothing against shmegegge of course.
posted by Tehanu at 3:07 PM on June 5, 2008

I'm not gonna keep trolling this guy, but I should clarify: "To hell with the feminists" is part of one of the comments he chose to approve, and it reads as borderline hate speech to me, as a feminist. It is the kind of chaff I would keep out of a discussion, if I were moderating it.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:14 PM on June 5, 2008

It's dickish, but you can always file one of those frivolous DCMA notices demanding that he take down the quotes as copyrighted material (at which point, he'll say that he's using them for "news" and that they're fair use), which will likely cause him at least half an hours worth of hassles with his ISP.
posted by klangklangston at 3:27 PM on June 5, 2008

Blogs may quote things all over the place, but that doesn't mean its not lame, dickish, or disrespectful to do so. Especially when you've been asked not to. Why are you holding on so tight Jaltcoh?
posted by iamkimiam at 4:15 PM on June 5, 2008

You know what the most awesome thing about Jaltcoh is? It's that he's the first one in the history of all time to point out that white men have got it bad too. Also, no one before him has ever had the guts to suggest that certain actions are political correctness gone mad.

I wish he had quoted my comment in his blog. It doesn't list any of the reasons the mods gave that I know of, but it easiliy and succinctly explains why his retardopost got deleted.

I don't easily dislike people (okay, movie stars and Dr Laura yes, ordinary people no), but I'm not thrilled with Jaltcoh, especially since he now has this positioned as some kind of victory.

Hey you know what Jatcoh? I remember people saying what you said back before there was a frikken World Wide Web. So don't go around thinking that all of a sudden you are raising some kind of profound issue. All of the people sucking your dick in the comments are doing so only because you are saying what they like to hear. Their eyes weren't opened by your posts. They were simply motivated by the kind of bias you attribute to the mods here.

"This is an issue that needs further discussion" = "I wish feminists would shut the hell up already".
posted by Deathalicious at 10:14 PM on June 5, 2008 [4 favorites]

he's the first one in the history of all time to point out that white men have got it bad too.

To be fair, he's done a crackerjack job of illustrating why they often have it coming.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:36 PM on June 5, 2008 [4 favorites]

I think the most frustrating part of the whole mess is the repeated claim that no mefite has given any rational reason why the post got deleted. It's like talking to a brick wall.
posted by Arturus at 1:52 PM on June 17, 2008

« Older AskMe Chatfilter Rescue: Disa... | Please resist the urge to &quo... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

Why the gender discrepancy? May 29, 2008 7:28 PM Subscribe

Why the gender discrepancy?
May 29, 2008 7:28 PM Subscribe