MetaTalk posts tagged with sexism

Does she owe him sex, too?

prefpara — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:18:57 -0800

This answer in a recent AskMe made me very uncomfortable. I know about "flag it and move on," but I don't actually think the answer breaks the guidelines. It didn't seem appropriate to turn the thread into an argument about it, so here I am. I think it's outrageous to say that in a relationship, the person whose salary is less "owes" housework to the other person, especially as the asker stated that she and her boyfriend work the same hours. In addition to that, the answer relies on questionable assumptions (e.g. "you chose not to invest as much time/money/effort into developing your human capital"). I think the overall feel of the answer (as well as the other answers by Jacqueline) is sexist. Frankly, this answer, and all of Jacqueline's answers in that question, make my blood boil. It feels to me like an attack on the asker. I disagree completely with all of it. I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing where I should just ignore it and accept that not everyone sees the world the same way that I do. If so, I apologize for making this post. However, I think that the perspective Jacqueline is sharing is actively harmful and just horribly wrong, and needs to be countered.

Watcha reading? Well, this thread for one thing

jokeefe — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:46:00 -0800

This recent thread, from October 8, is just about to close. It's been an extraordinary one, and is still active as of this afternoon. If you haven't read it, or if you stopped reading after the first few posts, you might want to visit or revisit the thread; you will find one of the finest and most thoughtful Metafilter discussions touching on sexism, sexual assault, and gender relations to have taken place here. Threads like this make Metafilter itself the best of the web. A special thank you to all who posted, especially to the women who told their personal stories.

just because you say "strinkingly beautiful" instead of "way hot" doesn't make it any less dumb

Optimus Chyme — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:43:58 -0800

This can be the thread for talking about hot babe whistleblowers; alternately, it can be the thread asking the people talking about hot babe whistleblowers to focus more on the whistleblowing aspect. An interesting story has been turned into a goddamn gross CJ. Well done.

'Scope' of offensive questions?

and hosted from Uranus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:10:07 -0800

This question is prejudiced and anonymous is a bad person for asking it. I feel that the question comes from a pretty fucked up place in terms of how anonymous views males, and, in the most general terms possible, I believe the metafilter community probably agrees with me. But, as the thread stands now, it reads like the community accepts it as perfectly a normal question that deserves only straight-forward answers. I trust the mods that the deleted answers that I didn't see were rightfully non-answers, but I also wonder how possible it is to tell anonymous the he/she doesn't deserve to have a fucked-up worldview validated (by answers that simply say "I'm a brother and not a thug" or "I'm a sister and fought with my siblings"), given the constraints jessamyn has given. If the "scope of the question" is "anecdata to counter our own experience," that's so narrow that's it chatfilter and, I believe, there's been a lot AskMe precedent for "chiding" the presumptions of the poster while still being helpful. I guess I'm just a little disappointed that AskMe/MetaFilter is not more angry at anonymous and is taking the question in stride, which I know is kinda weird ... being able to handle offensive questions without a flamewar should really be the ideal. But, damn, shouldn't "two or more boys together is inevitably a gathering of violent assholes" get more blowback than it has?

When the Blue's About the Blue

l33tpolicywonk — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:31:02 -0800

The direction of the teen modeling post went really Meta and callout-y really fast ... do we have informal standards to apply here? (While trying not to call out anyone in particular, because I think all sides are at least partially to blame). I'm dismayed by how fast the thread became not about the article (nor even about whether its concerns were legitimate) but about whether various commenters in the thread were sexist or said sexist things. If chunkling_express was a new member, I think a thread breaking down like this would be really discouraging to his posting again. I think if a new visitor saw the thread, they would get a bad impression of Metafilter as a snarky, angry place. I'm not saying "flag it and move on", but I think I'm saying "flag it and steer the conversation back to the FPP." Am I way off base here?

"I'd Hit It" Filter.

grapefruitmoon — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:01:28 -0800

"Cute Girl" Filter: I know we've gone over this before, but I feel like there should be another discussion about making posts about female athletes WITHOUT appealing to "AND SHE'S HOTT" (or "SHE'S NOT JUST HOTT"). First, Allison Stokke now Rina Takeda. Can we find a way to discuss their athleticism without digressing into "I'd hit it"?

Boyzone? Really?

grobstein — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:52:54 -0800

Is this discussion boyzone-y? In what might be a throwaway comment here, seanyboy calls "boyzone" on the thread. I wanted to engage that issue without derailing what seems to me like an exemplary discussion of the topic. This is probably the worst abuse of the 'boyzone' label I've encountered. seanyboy seem to be concluding boyzone from only the following elements:

1. Apparent difference of opinion distribution along gender lines. (I take it to be that the "isn't this just like smoking" opinion is relatively male, in the sense that males seem to have a higher probability of sharing this opinion.*) 2. Expression of apparently 'male' opinion by users who are presumably male, without deference to apparently 'female' opinion.

Note that most of the problems usually discussed in connection with boyzone are missing. There is no intimidation or personal attack of female users or any female people, unless you count civil disagreement and inquisitiveness as intimidation. If anything, the proponents of the relatively female position are using more aggressive tactics that tend to silence opposition, for example by attacking other commenters for their perceived ignorance. But: I think most people on all sides of the discussion are being extremely reasonable. We are having an interesting discussion that includes syntheses of the various positions, for example touching on the interaction between notions of "choice" and "mental illness." Things are going fine. To cry 'boyzone' here combines both its worst problems: 1) characterizing women as too weak to deal with even civil disagreement, and 2) characterizing seemingly honest male disagreement as coded discrimination. Fortunately, the thread proves those characterizations wrong. We should be proud. The 'boyzone' call seems to me like a nuclear option, because it has the (intended) effect of making conscientious male writers check themselves. That's good when there's been a testosterone spill and Mefites are getting hurt or scared off. But in general I prefer a free-spirited exchange where posters aren't actively worrying about whether they might have the wrong opinion. Self-censorship and eggshell-walking should only be invoked for special occasions. ----- *Whether this opinion is actually statistically more male or female or whatever is not really a concern of mine. Rather I'm trying to reconstruct what seanyboy means when he declares "boyzone" but doesn't explain himself. It's not implausible, though. One might think it's a statistically male opinion because it is somewhat callous towards anorexia, apparently a statistically female problem.

That which we call misogyny, by any other name...

torticat — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:27:16 -0800

Longtime Mefi lurker and non-FPPoster here, registering strong disgust at some of the comments in the Sarah Palin thread. "44 years old and four kids aren't enough? ... I imagine wanting to have as many kids as possible has something to do with her religious beliefs." WTF do your imaginings have to do with anything? What about HER CHOICE, regardless of her motivations or your opinions? What of the possibility that this was an unplanned pregnancy and she determined to carry it to term because that's what her convictions demand, not to say a difficult outcome she was willing to face? You think it was, not just her choice, but her civic responsibility to abort a baby with Down Syndrome? That is beyond sick. And none of your damned business. "Her decision to have a child in the first place put the child at risk before he/she was even born." Would you say that to the face of a parent of a child with DS? Set aside your political posturing and permit the woman the dignity to make a choice different from what you would have done. I'm a former-conservative-turned-Obama-supporter who finds this kind of criticism despicable. Sarah Palin is NOT the best-qualified Republican for VP. Obama's not (in some similar respects) the best-qualified Democrat for President. It's a fascinating race, so can we talk about that, without resorting to the kind of irrelevant and insulting comments about a candidate that I'd expect to see on the Corner or from the Freepers? Likewise the VPILF contributions. Good lord. I guess FLILF are next, about Michelle? Or has Mefi already covered this and I missed it? On preview, looks like some of these have been deleted. Mods, here's one you may have missed.

deleted...why?

HuronBob — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:43:00 -0800

I'm curious as to why this was deleted I've had my share of posts deleted, and usually I understand the reason... this FPP, not so much... It seemed like a topic worth discussing. Some feedback would be useful...what do you all think ?

Misandry and Ask Metafilter.

Second Account For Making Jokey Comments — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:04:21 -0800

Misandry and Ask Metafilter. A few months ago we had a watershed moment here in MetaTalk. We established that AskMe, even perhaps Metafilter itself, was and perhaps still is, a boys club. That misogyny ran rampant here and that it made the women uncomfortable when it reared its ugly head. That was an important discussion and there is no two-ways about it. It's good that we had that discussion and hopefully things have started to change. Now it's time we had another discussion about a less well known topic. Indeed, it is a topic that is described by a word that even my spell checker, which recognizes the word 'misogyny' with ease, dosen't know. That word? Misandry. Most of you may be unfamiliar with the word. This is understandable. Google Fight shows that 'misogyny' beats 'misandry' with a score of 1,740,000 hits to a mere 153,000 hits. So just what is misandry? Those of you who did not read the linked Wikipedia article will read that it is a "hatred (or contempt) of men or boys" and that it is "parallel to misogyny - the hatred of women." I have to say I've not seen much examples of misandry on Metafilter, but Ask Metafilter is full of examples. Far too many to link to here, in fact. But time and time again we see examples in AskMe, mostly in relationship-filter questions, where men are denigrated and put down for no other reason than that they are men and must be, at least in some way, evil. Jessamyn would (and does) disagree with me. Recently I expressed this feeling to which she replied "I'm sorry a question you asked there once went badly, but I really don't see this as the case generally." I have the greatest respect and admiration for the job that the moderators do here, but I feel that this is an issue that’s slipping under the radar. And I owe jessamyn a great deal and though we are likely bound to disagree on this topic, I know (hope?) she’ll understand that I hold her in high esteem but also that she’ll understand why I feel this way. As she said, a question I once asked about my own relationship, one which I regret asking and one which I freely admit sounded misogynistic but which was asked when I really wasn’t in the clearest state of mind, turned into a blood bath with most people calling me a misogynist, a claim I still resent and refute to this day. And ironically, the more I recanted, the more I tried to defend myself, the bigger a misogynist I seemed to become. At least according to most of those who participated in the thread. This is why I’m posting this in my sockpuppet account. That, and a fear that the mere fact I have raised this topic as a matter of concern for discussion will once again paint me as a misogynist. Back to the topic at hand; jessamyn does not see this as the case but I do and I wonder if the community would do as well, when presented with some evidence (or at the very least the notion in general). For the purposes of this discussion, it is very important to differentiate between those AskMe questions that are misandristic in nature and those that are not, as I have no issue with the latter. Those that aren’t are questions that are along the lines of "My boyfriend is beating me" or "My husband drinks a lot and gambles away all my money" or something similar within which people answer DTMFA. This is an entirely understandable response to that situation and certainly the best course of action as these are quite often clear cut cases in which the man in question deserves to be called out for the loser that he is. But all too often a woman will ask a question like "I love my boyfriend and he loves me but I have a fear of commitment" or "My husband and I had an argument the other night about money. He treats me well but I think he spends irresponsibly sometimes. How can I rectify the problem?", and the answers will invariably come back as "DTMFA." All to often a man will ask “One of my girlfriends habits is a problem for me. How can I overcome it?”, only to be shouted down as controlling, abusive, passive aggressive and, you guessed it, a misogynist. In my view, AskMe always seems to come down on the side of women and more often than not seems to imply that men are vile pigs who can't ever be trusted so just don't. Recent examples include this question, in which a woman explains that she has been with her boyfriend for five years and they get along great but she is freaking out about moving in with someone. She's never lived with anyone before and so its understandable that she'd be a little nervous, right? Well according to some, she should run because the guy is probably being a tad misogynistic in his behavior towards her. Says Lesser Shrew; "Run. Don't do it. In fact, take a vacation by yourself right now.... If I am reading this right, your need for solitude is a defining feature of you. And your boyfriend shrugs this off as a "quirk," feels free to tell you that what you think and feel about your own thoughts and feelings is less important than his own opinion that "you'll be fine."" Lesser Shrew repeats this pattern of misandrystic behavior quite often, it seems. In this question, a woman questions her compatibility with her boyfriend. She says "I love my boyfriend but I fear we aren't compatible for the long term. How to know if it these are things that are important enough to justify breaking up sooner rather than later." The questioner goes on to say that her boyfriend is "a lovely man [who] treats me really well, and I love him" Lesser Shrew disagrees, painting this man to be the misogynistic pig his girlfriend clearly dosen't know he is. "If he owes you any money at all, even eight bucks, get out now. Also, it's entirely possible that he doesn't "settle" so much as he does whatever comes along that doesn't cause him to much trouble and get in the way of the rest of his life." Another woman asks "I think I've met The One. Or, I thought I had. At the three-month mark, insecurities are plaguing me. I'm a long-time commitmentphobe. Help?" Isn't that great folks? She's met The One! She's happy but afraid of commitment but he's The One so she needs help getting past that. But according to Lesser Shrew, she needs to realise this man is bad news. Seizing upon an admission that The One often comments on the attractiveness of other women, she opines; "Exactly how and why does he tells you other women are hot? If you are in fact commenting, and saying "do you think she is hot?" Stop. No good will come of that. Men have days when they think the bat wing upper arms of elderly woman who just lost 86 pounds are hot. Let it go. If he is volunteering the information that other women are hot, well, then relax, enjoy this for what it is now, and don't forget to notice other men in case you need a new boyfriend in a month or two..." So clearly he's not The One. He'll probably be gone in a month or two but in the meantime, accept that all men will have sex with anything that breathes. That's just how men are. I don’t mean to single Lesser Shrew out, however, as she is not the only person to display such misandrystic behavior. For instance, a woman asks Metafilter about communication problems with her "wonderful S.O" She clearly states she does not want advice that suggests she DTMFA. What kind of advice does she end up getting? Apart from a lot of advice that essentially says "Well, I'd say DTMFA but you've ruled that out", she also gets this pearl of wisdom from beccyjoe. "i think he is being manipulative by not saying "i love you" - he knows you'd like to hear it. he holds so much power over you by holding back. what's so hard -if he does love you- about saying it? if he has trouble getting the words out he could write it on a card. past traumas my ass." Clearly her wonderful S.O is a manipulative misogynist! His past experiences in love and life matter naught! He's controlling you! Run! Run now while there's still time! How about this question, where a woman asks for help about her boyfriend who doesn’t seem to like her dog? Advice in that thread ranges from more examples of "His feelings don't matter and he should get over it", advice that he's a jerk and being passive-aggressive and of course, that old chestnut, DTMFA. Then there was the question about the boyfriend described as "kind and loving and thoughtful in almost all ways" who, after three years of dating, had displayed some potentially misogynistic behavior. In a conversation he had had with his girlfriend, he had explained a tradition in his family wherein the women serve the men at Thanksgiving dinners. Granted, the tradition sounds entirely sexist in its roots but bear in mind that after three years, this conversation was the first time he had ever displayed any kind of misogynistic behavior, and that it had only arisen in reference to a tradition his family holds, one that he was explaining to his girlfriend to prepare her for what might be expected of her when she visited his family for the holidays. I don't need to link to examples of how that thread went. I think you can pretty much guess for yourself. I could go on but I won't. The point I'm trying to make here is that in light of our conversation here in MetaTalk a few months ago where we realized that misogyny and sexism are two things that should not be tolerated here on Metafilter (and rightly so!), AskMe allows a disturbing amount of misandry to go unchecked. If women were being routinely put down in such ways on AskMe, I strongly argue that it would NOT be tolerated. If a man asked "My wife wants me serve her food at Christmas and I feel uncomfortable about it, is she a misandrist?" the answer would be "get over it you baby." If a man asked how he could get his girlfriend to like his dog, the answer would be "dispose of the dog and stop trying to control her, you pig!" AskMe appears to routinely reinforce the notion that misandry is fine, that men are by and large misogynists and that their feelings in relationships matter little to not at all when compared to those of their women. Does the community agree that this is the case? If so, should this change, or at the very least be more heavily moderated than it currently is? If not, why is one form of apparent sexism tolerable in comparison to another that is not?

Men do have babies. Ask any transgender man who has had one.

humannaire — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:33:39 -0800

How much anti-trangenderism is considered tolerable? ChickenringNYC seems to be crossing the line. His spiel that men are men and women are women because he doesn't get transgender may be considered questionable, but his "I feel sorry for the kid" stance is pure bigotry-in-compassionate-clothing: That same garbage has been regurgitated hundreds of different ways (ie religion race nationality sexual preference et al). Toss in meanspiritedness, and suddenly I find myself here in MetaTalk appealing for peer review.

Why the gender discrepancy?

Jaltcoh — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:28:14 -0800

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.

What gives?

semmi — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:32:38 -0800

Seeing that, by any other name pundit Frank Rich's essentially anti Clinton bloviaton was given space on the blue for the measure of 131 comments last I looked, I thought it appropriate to post two articles that past muster with Washington Post and was found politically and factually correct to be published. One is about the misogynistic comments across the board against Hillary Clinton --and Howard Dean and the DNC's silence about it, and the other is about the newest wave of belittling "Poor Hillary." Both articles reveal the difficulties the Democrats may face by their own antagonized and disenfranchised Hillary supporters, which I believe worthy of consideration. Yet the post disappeared in a hurry without a trace. What gives?

Jessamyn's talk at SxSW

Argyle — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:21:04 -0800

Jessamyn spoke at the SxSW panel on User Revolts today. Here are her notes on The Day They Tested the Manifesto, as was shown during the panel. Most of you MeTa types are infovores, so I thought I'd share. Obv, she rocked the house.

Boooooooooobs.

thehmsbeagle — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:30:34 -0800

Hey, you know how I'm apparently your friendly neighborhood irrational/uptight/bitchy feminist? Well, my Batsignal is going off. 'Cause I'm bitchy/uptight/irrational/out to ruin your fun. And I don't like conversations that are all about the hilarious inevitability of adults ogling some lady's rack. I'm not a guy. I'm willing to accept that it is, in some mysterious way I don't fully understand, more difficult for a man not to look at boobs than it is for women not to look at boobs. Sure. And I can also grasp that some men, for whatever reason, have had a harder time than others internalizing the "Hey man! Her EYES, look at her EYES." thing, and are asking for tips. Fine. But I can't really get behind the back-patting, boys will be boys, check out my awesome new term for "breasts", women are for staring at LOL AMIRITE! stuff developing in that thread. Cranky joking aside, I'm not actually out to ruin the good time of a bunch of dudes going "Yes, I know exactly what you mean, and here's how I've dealt with it..." - but the tenor of some of these comments is edging into essentially making cracks about sexual harassment. Okay, I'm supposed to flag and move on, right? But, say, this 29 person's comment: Anyways, you cannot look into a woman's eyes as if she were a man. That is just preposterous. Looking at a co-worker's dairy pillows is perfectly fine as long as you're not staring like a crazed pervert. Don't make it obvious, either. And it might be a good idea to not moan or touch yourself at the same time. Also, keep from talking about the juggs. That comment makes me super uncomfortable, but there are unfortunately a number of much less egregious comments that (without the retarded har-har-har hyperbole, of course!) say essentially the same thing ("You can't help it! Just don't do it when she's looking and stuff.") I am not casting some net of blame over the male denizens of AskMe when I say this: getting ogled by colleagues is a real and unpleasant part of the day of many female workers. And it's not all that hilarious when it happens to you. And holy shit guys, I'm a modest dresser, but I have big boobs, and if I ever bent over in front of a guy and he said "Hahaha, your boobs, they distract me!", my blush wouldn't be a charmed "Oh, that's awkward, but I'm glad he said something!" kind of blush, it would be the "Should I burst into humiliated tears now or later?" kind. I just don't know, folks. Haven't most workers had some lame training at some point that gives you tips about this? Is this really still a conversation we're having in such an unenlightened way?

Battle of the Flickr All-Stars

chuckdarwin — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:35:16 -0800

This FPP sucks. It's basically just an excuse to ogle Rebekka: 'Look, she has boobies!' My post (and a couple of others, IIRC) on this very same subject was deleted months ago (back when this was, you know, actually relevant). Why should an openly sexist version remain?

Rethinking comment deletion

strangeguitars — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:27:18 -0800

I'm seeing a lot of very eloquent responses to AskMe questions getting deleted. Some of them are very long, and while they could be thought of as containing some offending material, the whole comments are being deleted. I want to propose and discuss just removing the offensive parts -- editing out sentences or paragraphs, and not entire comments, so that the "good stuff" can remain. And maybe there is just too much hacking and slashing. Looking at an AskMe thread, you can sometimes see remnants of previous comments in what people copy and paste in their own comments, but the originals have been deleted. And sometimes this can be quite disorienting.

No Talkin' Bout Women on the Blue!

BitterOldPunk — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:11:35 -0800

It may have been a "crappy fight-starter of an op-ed", but seems like people were discussing it in a civil fashion. There was no good reason to delete this thread. I'll grant that it was a weak FPP, but that's hardly unusual. How many "sexist" flags did it attract, and was that why it was deleted? If so, I call bullshit. If not, I still call bullshit, cuz then cortex is apparently deleting stuff at random.

I don't like your language, young man.

taff — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:55:48 -0800

Am I the only one to find this questions language offensive/sexist? I've flagged it and written a comment but I'm the only one. I don't think I've ever flagged before. Or maybe once. What happens next? And why am I the only whinger? It seems like an entirely reasonable question with tacit misogeny thrown in for the prurient factor. I wouldn't normally post in the grey. This is my first time. But my beloved Jessamyn didn't slap this chap, so I'm confused. I notice that people often take their whinges here. So here I whinge.

Sexism debate, displaced.

CitrusFreak12 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:36:57 -0800

It appears that some people feel that a non sequitur remark made in the "more inside" portion of a recent post was sexist. Others remain unconvinced. Rather than derail the thread any further, I thought perhaps those interested in discussing their feelings on the issue could do so here rather than on the blue.

Your thoughts on current and future changes to make Metafilter more woman friendly

Brandon Blatcher — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:19:57 -0800

Recently, as in the past day or so, the flag for "offensive" was changed to "offensive/sexism/racism". This was done at the request of several female members who believe Metafilter has become or has been hostile to women and who wished to have some means of highlighting these instances. Several other changes are being considered, such as an addition to the FAQ/guidelines, although nothing concrete has been hammered out. If you would like to add suggestions or have constructive criticism, please do so in this thread. If you you would like to read the full story of how this came to be, check out this previous Metatalk thread. It's a bit long, but worth reading for a full understanding of how this issue came about.

Discussion Point

jennydiski — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:46:02 -0800

A post about how women experience street harassment has been deleted. The one about how the psychology of exhibitionist men remains. The grounds: This post was deleted for the following reason: one exhibitionism post per day is enough. This is linked in the thread just below this. Please don't use MetaFilter to forward your point from metatalk. -- jessamyn My point was to continue a discussion some people thought valuable from a previous thread deleted apparently because that post was poor. Just can't get the hang of this thing. Hey ho.

Hysterics

four panels — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:09:50 -0800

These comments are really making me think, actually... I really wish people could post comments as anonymous sometimes. Because by percentages alone, YOU KNOW that there are people reading this thread who are, indeed, serial flashers or public masterbators. There HAVE to be. You know, I can take a bit of sexism, but this is really overboard.

Please accept my apology

reenum — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:54:11 -0800

Back in January, I posted a pretty offensive thread. I'm not sure if this is appropriate for MetaTalk, but I would like to apologize for it. I was in a bad place at the time, and hope that anyone who was offended will forgive me for this indiscretion.

AskMeFi, not JudgeMeFi

schroedinger — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:11:46 -0800

I want to express frustration with some of the responses in this thread. [more inside]