Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hence we need...the Feminist-Team!!!! *cue action music*
"Are you suffering because of gender roles? well if you can find them, maybe you can hire, the F-Team!"

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Sorry for the diversion. The whole tangeant was brought up when I suggested that the "stud vs. sl-t" double-standard may be becoming more and more of a red herring.

Among men in my age group that I know personally, none of us could care less how many people so-and-so sleep with, and lots of random partners is considered an unwise lifestyle for men as much as women.

That's all I was originally trying to say. I will withdraw now. Cheers!

Id like to know where all these people who "high five" studs that sleeps around are? Why would I like a person thats hoggin all the ladies? So where are all these Studbeibers?

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, after every time I do the deed, when I look out the window, about 20 drunk guys in fraternity t-shirts come out of the forest screaming "Hootenanny! Hootenanny! Oi! Oi! Oi!". I keep telling them it was kind of amusing when I was single, but now that I'm married, its getting creepy.

Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights.
.
..
...
*Starts running*

Please don't flamebait/troll the forum. Thanks.

Sexism on the Internet is the same with Racism and homophobia on the Internet and that the Internet does not have any filter on who gets to see or comment on the material you post ,when you post things on the Internet you are exposing your self to the entire world and that includes the not so nice people as well. Before you might only share things with your friends or other like minded people who would not say things like " I got a boner while watching you" or scream "BOOBS" while you give your speech or performance and if they did they would be quickly dealt with by the other people who would not take kindly to those things. The other thing to remember is that more than likely those people are a minority but a very vocal minority that now have a huge platform to spread their ideals and stupidity, and now that we have identified these people as Trolls no one engages them and ignores them hoping they go away because they are not getting the attention that they crave, problem with that is now it seems the Trolls are they only ones commenting and the other Trolls back them up leaving the rest of us at our keyboards shacking our heads or laughing how stupid they are.

 Pendix wrote:

How does your attitude/response change between dealing with a 'close interaction' person vs 'remote observation' person. Say, (to use a particular example from this thread) how does your response differ if you saw people discussing a picture of a movie star you don't know vs people discussing a picture of a co-worker? Is it ok to comment on the attractiveness of one but not the other? Is "I'd tap that" and similar comments more acceptable for the one you don't know personally?

Honestly, I have a hard time classifying positive commentary on another person's appearance as being particularly sexist; there have to be other behaviors associated with it for me to take notice. But, to elaborate:

The easiest way to explain the distinction revolves around the relevance of personality. To carry the Scarlett Johansson example: I don't care about her personality at all, because I will never meet her and I'm well aware that the mannerisms I am privy to are an extension of a public persona rather than her unfiltered self. As such it seems silly for me to consider her as anything more than a remote object*. Further, I would argue that the nature of acceptable comments changes as your relationship, or lack thereof, with that person changes not in a digital manner, but an analog one. In essence you can get away with fairly crude comments regarding someone you don't know at all, and someone you know very well, but not someone you have a middling relationship with.




*I'll also add that this isn't a behavior that's limited to me, or men in general, women are just as guilty of objectifying attractive guys.

Daemonhammer wrote:
Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights.
.
..
...
*Starts running*

What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.

Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.

I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights.
.
..
...
*Starts running*

What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.

Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.

I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions

What bums me out most is that we have had some of the most brilliant minds ever born who devoted their lives (some destroying themselves in the process) to progressing humanity over some 70 years or so to eventually get us to the point where we can have a box in our pockets smaller than a book that can transmit messages to the opposite side of the world in seconds, and that message was how he chose to use it.

 Janthkin wrote:


One of the most pernicious things about the -isms is how people are perfectly willing to take the actions of an individual and use them to generalize.

Oh, you mean like professionalism?

Your point is correct and that's the problem. We can all agree that there's a huge problem regarding behavior on the internet. In a lot of areas, there's a huge male surplus and as with every issue, this leads to zerging up and offensive and hateful remarks towards the opposing party. In this very case, it's sexism. It's not a problem on the internet, it's a problem in (a lot of) areas. And just to mention it since most people forget about it: sexism goes both ways. If a woman claims having been sexually harassed at Twitter, there's a huge uproar and people immediately jump on the whiteknight train. A man claims having been sexually harassed and he gets shouted down.

The actual problem starts when sexism is instrumentalized. And that was what I wanted to point out previously: not every sexist action or trouble is started by sexism. It's disgusting to see it being instrumentalized by certain inviduals who purposefully cause trouble and uproar to then play the victim and play the "Just because I am a woman!" card. See: Zoe Quinn. Faking a "raid" to then play the sexism card is nothing but instrumentalizing feminism. And that's why I said that it "ashames all women in the gaming industry". Such a behavior strongly reinforces the "women are inferior" archetype which we, hopefully, do not want to further endorse.

That, of course, does not justify so many things that occur in the aftermath of such an abuse - that's not my point. In all cases on this, the consequences get really ugly. Posting private data, sending nudes around, people trying to set them up and in general just mudwash...etc. All of those aren't justified, they still are very wrong (and illegal, on top). But what comes around, goes around.

Sexism will always be around. Men and women are different. Slightly different in some areas, largely different in others. Some see these differences as strengths (as we do), some use them to abuse them to exert power on others. Like all -isms.

It's up to everyone to make the most of that situation. People need, in general, to open their mind and practice being able to step back and not to get involved too emotionally in regard to certain issues. Sexism is rarely rationally motivated, most of the time, there's an emotional reasoning behind all of it and then, the pack-mentality rushes in. For BOTH sides.

 Peregrine wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
Personally I despise sexism, but a lot of what's been brought up in this thread isn't sexism IMO, ''that ass'' is rude but not really sexist, which is a problem because then people who actually suffer from sexism get branded under this new 'diluted' sexism label.

It's only "not sexist" if you ignore the fact that this kind of thing happens much more frequently to women than to men. If a male politician gives a speech about tax policy the comments on it will be almost entirely about their political activities. If a female politician gives the same speech you can almost guarantee that there will be a lot of discussion about how attractive she is, often to the point that her political arguments aren't even the focus anymore. And this isn't just coincidence, there's a sexist attitude that it's appropriate to comment on how attractive a woman is, regardless of context. The result is that their professional/artistic/etc accomplishments are neglected in favor of how hot they are, something a lot more damaging than an occasional bit of rudeness.

But it's not like the people commenting about the women politician's attractiveness aren't not talking about the male politician's attractiveness because they don't think it's okay to do it to a man, but because they're probably not sexually attracted to the male as well.

The most prolific killer I have ever met was a female tracked vehicle mechanic with the 20th EN BN.

The military has no pay gap.

jamesk1973 wrote:

The military has no pay gap.

Most branches haven't

 daedalus wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights.
.
..
...
*Starts running*

What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.

Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.

I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions

What bums me out most is that we have had some of the most brilliant minds ever born who devoted their lives (some destroying themselves in the process) to progressing humanity over some 70 years or so to eventually get us to the point where we can have a box in our pockets smaller than a book that can transmit messages to the opposite side of the world in seconds, and that message was how he chose to use it.

It is quite saddening I agree.

I found it interesting that recent discussion of the gender pay gap again focused on the glass ceiling for women. They always solely focus on the pay of a tiny proportion, as if the pay of a handful of senior managers and executives is the gauge for sexism in society, and if a handful of women can get into a few more minority jobs, the world will be ok. I'm obviously not against equal pay, but the equal pay act exists. The pay of the vast majority isn't looked at or the broad fairness of it for men and women alike, or their working rights. Men don't get equal access to paternity time to support their partners during birth. More women should be encouraged into traditionally male environments such as engineering as there are higher wages to be had in these.

The media and other commentators only focus on the 1% or so that have senior positions with very high wages because if those seem equal then everyone seems more equal despite the fact that it's largely an irrelevance what the top end can fight each other to get.

Personally, I think it's more important to look at the pay of millions on the minimum wage than it is to obsess over the pay of the most senior positions, who earn vast amounts anyway through years of fighting and crawling to each other. Constant talk of a glass ceiling that the majority will never get near seems like misdirection to more underlying problems with equality and fairness.

Yes, it is like the attention paid to the unfairness of inheritance tax when only about 10% of the population will ever have to pay any of it.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights.
.
..
...
*Starts running*

What do you mean a woman is always right. Guess you're not in a relation.

Yeah, anonymity is both a blessing as well as a burden on the internet, too many people misuse it to vent their (imagined) issues, or just to stir up gak.

I don't understand why people do this, i am who i am and what i post are my real (maybe misguided) opinions

What bums me out most is that we have had some of the most brilliant minds ever born who devoted their lives (some destroying themselves in the process) to progressing humanity over some 70 years or so to eventually get us to the point where we can have a box in our pockets smaller than a book that can transmit messages to the opposite side of the world in seconds, and that message was how he chose to use it.

It is quite saddening I agree.

I was trying to joke, when i used this before people laughed so i figured i would have the same result here.
I was hoping the " *Starts running* " part would make it clear that its just a joke.
Jokes sometimes misfire. Dont hate me for it.

I have a lot of "left wing" wievs so im all for women's rights.

 dogma wrote:
Honestly, I have a hard time classifying positive commentary on another person's appearance as being particularly sexist; there have to be other behaviors associated with it for me to take notice. But, to elaborate:

The easiest way to explain the distinction revolves around the relevance of personality. To carry the Scarlett Johansson example: I don't care about her personality at all, because I will never meet her and I'm well aware that the mannerisms I am privy to are an extension of a public persona rather than her unfiltered self. As such it seems silly for me to consider her as anything more than a remote object*. Further, I would argue that the nature of acceptable comments changes as your relationship, or lack thereof, with that person changes not in a digital manner, but an analog one. In essence you can get away with fairly crude comments regarding someone you don't know at all, and someone you know very well, but not someone you have a middling relationship with.

This seems to me to be something to be questioned. You may do it reflexively, or naturally, but that does not mean that act is not problematic. Are you saying that if, in a discussion, the subject is 'remote person' is it OK to say the same things, and demonstrate the same level of respect as you would for a 'remote chair' or 'remote rock'? And that to do otherwise is 'silly'?

 dogma wrote:
*I'll also add that this isn't a behavior that's limited to me, or men in general, women are just as guilty of objectifying attractive guys.

For me, this isn't a question of prevalence, or process, it's a question of rationale. Why is ok to treat people differently depending on your relative relationship. (Excepting the obvious: that when you have a close relationship with someone; you have the opportunity to establish mutually acceptable rules of interaction.)

 Pendix wrote:

This seems to me to be something to be questioned. You may do it reflexively, or naturally, but that does not mean that act is not problematic. Are you saying that if, in a discussion, the subject is 'remote person' is it OK to say the same things, and demonstrate the same level of respect as you would for a 'remote chair' or 'remote rock'? And that to do otherwise is 'silly'?

No.

Not all objects are created equal. I would have thought this to be obvious.

 Pendix wrote:

For me, this isn't a question of prevalence, or process, it's a question of rationale. Why is ok to treat people differently depending on your relative relationship. (Excepting the obvious: that when you have a close relationship with someone; you have the opportunity to establish mutually acceptable rules of interaction.)

Why exempt that?

At any rate, prevalence and process feed into rationale.

As to why it is OK: I would rather work with someone who I had a reasonably significant relationship with, than someone I did not.

 dogma wrote:
No.

Not all objects are created equal. I would have thought this to be obvious.

I'm afraid it is not obvious to me. In so far as how you talk about them, all 'objects' are crated equal. A chair is not accorded particular respect that a table is not, there are not words you would use to describe a computer, that would be offensive* when used to describe an eggcup.

 dogma wrote:
Why exempt that?

I exempt that mainly because I do understand that sort of thing with 'someone you know very well'. What I still don't understand is the difference in acceptable treatment between 'someone you don't know at all' and someone with whom you have a 'middling relationship'.

 dogma wrote:
At any rate, prevalence and process feed into rationale.

I am starting to wonder if we are just working from fundamentally different frameworks.
In a question of 'why do you do something?' 'prevalence' is only of value if you think 'cause everybody else is doing it' is a good enough answer.
Similarly 'process' is (while interesting) still outside the matter of 'why?' It would be like answering 'why do you dance?' with 'by moving in time with the music'.

Perhaps you could expand on the 'relevance of personality'. Is it just a matter of how 'real' then now seem, or is it a matter of their personality being relevant now that you may have to deal with it?

 dogma wrote:
As to why it is OK: I would rather work with someone who I had a reasonably significant relationship with, than someone I did not.

I'm not sure how that answers the question.



*incorrect certainly, but not offensive.