Moderator's Language

[Vuk]

As the resident feminist-dude here, let's go through this step by step Vuk, hand-in-hand.


Abortion is a female issue, is it not? Women often feel much more strongly about abortion than men, which is why female perspective on the issue are necessary for any debate about it. The actions in that thread marginalised and minimized contributions from women.


That data is within the statistical margin of error. Besides, that data neglects to mention the group of women who are pro-choice but anti-life - i.e. they think it should be legal, but would never undergo an abortion themselves.


As it should be. The embryo/fetus is a part of the woman's body, not the man's.


Check your privilege.


Sexism is prejudice backed up by power, usually institutionalised. The mod's decision was not based on any prejudice against men, but due to the behaviour of men in that thread.



Please don't stuff strawmen with straw.


As a general rule, women are often very self-conscious about speaking up on an issue like that (or indeed any issue) when men are very present/vocal. By collectively mansplaining on an issue which is very personal to all women, women are put off from commenting both in the thread, and in the wider backroom. This isn't an environment that should be fostered - would you not agree that any behaviour the Backroom engaged in which put off black members to be unacceptable?


Offence isn't the problem. Make sure that your privilege has been checked by the time you reply.

Abortion is a female issue? I guess that depends what side of the issue you are on. If you believe that the organism inside you is not a human being, then you could argue that it is (at least mostly) a female issue, as the only human being affected is the woman carrying the child (of course there too you have the feelings of the father that some argue should play a role in the choice, but whatever). If on the other hand you believe that that organism is a living human being, then two people are being affected with ever choice, and it is not an issue of women, but of humanity. If you believe that a fetus is a human being and they are being killed en masse, then yes, a man has the right and the duty to stand up for innocent life. To argue otherwise would be to argue that Hitler's Holocaust was a German issue and we should really not get involved. When innocent life is being destroyed, it is the right and duty of humans to defend it...male and female.
So again, your and Paps arguments hinge completely of Pro-Abortion beliefs and ignore the feelings and beliefs of those pro-Life members.

Women often feel much more strongly about abortion than men, which is why female perspective on the issue are necessary for any debate about it. The actions in that thread marginalised and minimized contributions from women.

They do? What about the men who feel that this is murder? You don't think their feelings are as strong? Also, no, a female perspective is NOT necessary...neither is a male perspective. Males and females can have the same or similar perspectives. Also, much of the debate hinges around science, and what is IS, regardless of whether males or females believe it. Either it is murder or it is not (and I will not get into that here), and you will have men and women on both sides. You can have a perfectly reasonable and worthwhile discussion with all women or all men.
Also, the actions in that thread marginalised and minimized contributions from women? Considering that the debate was not even allowed to get off the floor because the mods scared everyone away and turned it into a thread where the only thing people dared do was crack stupid jokes, I take it that you are referring to previous abortion threads. So tell me, is a guy stating his opinion marginalizing and minimizing a woman's contribution? If so, is a woman stating her opinion marginalizing and minimizing a man's contribution?

That data is within the statistical margin of error. Besides, that data neglects to mention the group of women who are pro-choice but anti-life - i.e. they think it should be legal, but would never undergo an abortion themselves.

So what? It still proves my point that there is no significant difference in male and female opinions on the matter.

As it should be. The embryo/fetus is a part of the woman's body, not the man's.

Again, this is written from the perspective of a pro-choicer. It is more than just a woman's decision if indeed a fetus is a living human being. It is, as I said, the problem of all humanity (just as genocide somewhere in the world is). So your rules regarding what is appropriate for debate on abortion automatically favor your opinion on the subject. That is not fair for discussion.

Check your privilege.

Now I think I know the source of the your train of thought. A train of thought that, IMHO is deeply flawed. Let me quote a few points of that article. (my commentary in bold)

What you need to realize is that we all have privilege to some degree

Any time a non-privileged individual busts out with an angry critique...

Yes, privileged groups can and do come into contact with prejudice and discrimination. Are those discussions valid? You bet. But, are they appropriate when the topic is on the discrimination and/or oppression of a particular non-privileged group? Not a chance.



If we all have privilege, then what the heck is a non-privileged individual? Continuously in this article she says that everyone, including privileged groups are discriminated against and that their grievances are just as valid, but should not be expressed in a forum intended for the grievances of non-privileged individuals. If we all face discrimination that is just as valid, AND we are all enjoy privilege, then how the heck is one non-privileged and one privileged. If we are all equal in that respect, then why the distinction? Why is one group (the so-called privileged...even though all the non-privileged people are privileged too) then supposedly inferior to the other group? Seriously, that is the argument she makes!

All Opinions Are Not Created Equal


And it’s you, as the privileged party, who needs to be extra careful about when and how you draw links.

...why do privileged groups have to earn trust, only to then be told that they should give it to non-privileged groups? Simply because non-privileged groups, coming from an insider perspective, are in a position to understand their issues in a way that privileged groups, as outsiders, never can.

That last quote, really? And of course privileged groups come from an insider perspective and are in a postion to understand their issues in a way that non-privileged groups, as outsiders cannot, so why don't non-privileged groups have to earn their trust?

In all honestly Subotan, that article pretty much sums up the exact train of thought so prevalent in modern America that is intent on dividing people rather than building unity. It necessitates that one group either admit their inferior status as oppressors and act in a subservient manner, or be labeled the enemy. I could go on and on debating this dribble with you, but I do not have the time and I think I have said enough on the matter. Let it suffice to say that I think it is BS and that one person's opinion is not any more or less valid or important than another's as she contends, except where expert knowledge is concerned. The thing is though, that anyone who has done the appropriate research can gain expert knowledge in something. Knowledge is not limited by gender or race. True, you may not know exactly how something makes someone feel, but you can still have in-depth knowledge into its real, practical effects. I reject her notions of racial and sexual superiority.

Sexism is prejudice backed up by power, usually institutionalised. The mod's decision was not based on any prejudice against men, but due to the behaviour of men in that thread.

Oh, so it is not sexism if a tell a random woman walking by on the streets that I wanna do something indecent to her because she is a bitch? That is not backed up by any power, and their is no institution to protect that type of behavior. Sorry, but you are wrong. Sexism does NOT have to be backed up by power. An intent can be sexist. Also, please explain WHAT behavior? What behavior was sexist (as he insinuated) and obnoxious (as he said)?

Please don't stuff strawmen with straw.

It is a valid question I think. Does he really object to an overwhelming male response (as indicated in his post)? Why, considering that it is a forum with an overwhelming male membership?

As a general rule, women are often very self-conscious about speaking up on an issue like that (or indeed any issue) when men are very present/vocal. By collectively mansplaining on an issue which is very personal to all women, women are put off from commenting both in the thread, and in the wider backroom. This isn't an environment that should be fostered - would you not agree that any behaviour the Backroom engaged in which put off black members to be unacceptable?

Really? Here you come and portray women as timid little creatures afraid or unable to participate in a debate with men and yet say the posters on the abortion threads were sexist? I am sorry, but this forum DOES have mostly male members! It is therefore natural to get a mostly male oriented response! Is that bad? Does that really turn women away? I don't know, but I regularly post on two forums with a mostly female membership (forums for local newspapers), and majority of the responses are from a female perspective. It does not make me self-conscious or put me off from commenting. Whether I agree or disagree with the majority opinion, and whether it is extremely important to me or not I will always respectfully state my opinion without hesitation. Are you arguing then that women are just naturally timid and cannot handle posting in threads with mostly male posters?
Any behaviour in the Backroom that put off black members? You mean racism? Yeah, I agree that racism is not healthy to a discussion and that sexism is not either, but I fail to see how a man stating his opinion is automatically sexism. (You yourself are a man, are you not? You yourself have and express your opinion, do you not?)

So in short Subotan, no, I do not consider one race or sex's opinion to be more important than another's. In fact, I believe that that believe is both racism and sexist at its core. White, American, Heterosexual males (and any other group that you consider 'privileged') have as much a right to express their opinions on any subject as anyone else. They are not second-class citizens and shouldn't be treated like ones because of their 'privilege'. (and if you treat them like that, then what 'privilege' do they have? It is then minorities who are privileged and then you start the process over again. How about equality? Surely you can agree that that is a good goal. Funny thing about goals is that if you do not start pursuing them, they will never be fulfilled. You cannot attain equality by practicing and preaching inequality. Equality can only be achieved by actively practicing it and trying to convince others to practice it.)

Whether you agree with me or not on that matter though is a non-point. What matters is that excluding or limiting one group's rights to a discussion is only acceptable if you hold your opinion. Therefore if you enforce that, then you are not being unbiased. The rules cannot be based on your opinions on the issues being discussed! Surely we can agree there?

My thread is not about abortion, but about offensive language and improper enforcement (usually unwittingly) by moderators. I know that our mods try their hardest, but if people don't point out to them when they mess up, they will not be able to do their job as well as they could.

EDIT: collectively mansplaining? Really? "to delighting in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation"

Ok, I have NEVER seen this happen in an abortion thread. I would seriously love to see you back that accusation up. And by collectively, that insinuates that it was group activity. I am a little offended by that accusation.

[Andres]

I found that thread a pretty funny read, but since it was more about people watching other people, it was going to degenerate into spam anyway. Probably some pretty funny spam, but still spam.

Nobody is stopping you from creating a new abortion thread though, but not with a one-liner OP, as per the BR rules:

The thread title should be descriptive and help readers to understand the subject being proposed for discussion. The starting post itself should be considered and offer an opinion for patrons to debate. One liners, or just a link are not acceptable.

[Montmorency]

I found that thread a pretty funny read, but since it was more about people watching other people, it was going to degenerate into spam anyway. Probably some pretty funny spam, but still spam.

Nobody is stopping you from creating a new abortion thread though, but not with a one-liner OP, as per the BR rules:

Hmm, I didn't want to provide an opinion there, as it was irrelevant to the purpose of the thread. My desire was to collect responses to the question I posed in the OP. That's unacceptable, then? Ah well.

[Andres]

Hmm, I didn't want to provide an opinion there, as it was irrelevant to the purpose of the thread. My desire was to collect responses to the question I posed in the OP. That's unacceptable, then? Ah well.

Well, the BR mods can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the ratio behind that rule is that a thread that starts with a well thought out post is more likely to lead to an interesting discussion than a thread that starts with a one liner.

[Beskar]

Well, the BR mods can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the ratio behind that rule is that a thread that starts with a well thought out post is more likely to lead to an interesting discussion than a thread that starts with a one liner.

That is correct.

[Major Robert Dump]

This thread should be aborted.

I was not offended by the moderator's post, but I was a little disappointed it was locked because I only got a single one-liner off.

[Papewaio]

Abortion is a sensitive topic.

It's one of the few areas where there is an acceptable inequality and it ain't pro-male. So a whole slew of the content I abortion threads of the past have been very much reactive to this perceived inequality and as pointed out we have a largely male demographic. Hence a lot of very male opinions with little sensitivity to female feelings.

Not that males are by definition obnoxious just that a large portion of the commentary was lacking in perspective and rather harsh to the female gender.

So my comments were based on observation of some of the worse versions of the threads that have emerged. The better ones tend to have more meat and perspective in the OP and set the tone for the thread.

[Subotan]

Abortion is a female issue? I guess that depends what side of the issue you are on. If you believe that the organism inside you is not a human being, then you could argue that it is (at least mostly) a female issue, as the only human being affected is the woman carrying the child (of course there too you have the feelings of the father that some argue should play a role in the choice, but whatever). If on the other hand you believe that that organism is a living human being, then two people are being affected with ever choice, and it is not an issue of women, but of humanity. If you believe that a fetus is a human being and they are being killed en masse, then yes, a man has the right and the duty to stand up for innocent life. To argue otherwise would be to argue that Hitler's Holocaust was a German issue and we should really not get involved. When innocent life is being destroyed, it is the right and duty of humans to defend it...male and female. So again, your and Paps arguments hinge completely of Pro-Abortion beliefs and ignore the feelings and beliefs of those pro-Life members.

Embryos and early-foetuses aren't organisms, biologically speaking, though. That's the whole point.

Considering that the debate was not even allowed to get off the floor because the mods scared everyone away and turned it into a thread where the only thing people dared do was crack stupid jokes, I take it that you are referring to previous abortion threads. So tell me, is a guy stating his opinion marginalizing and minimizing a woman's contribution? If so, is a woman stating her opinion marginalizing and minimizing a man's contribution?

The bolded part is backwards. Stupid jokes caused the scaring away of serious content.

So what? It still proves my point that there is no significant difference in male and female opinions on the matter.

If abortion was suddenly made illegal, men (As in, men who have been born) will be minimally directly affected. Women, on the other hand, will have far more direct consequences - this is indisuptable, regardless of how you feel about the morality of abortion.

Again, this is written from the perspective of a pro-choicer. It is more than just a woman's decision if indeed a fetus is a living human being. It is, as I said, the problem of all humanity (just as genocide somewhere in the world is). So your rules regarding what is appropriate for debate on abortion automatically favor your opinion on the subject. That is not fair for discussion

I am not saying that you can't have an opinion on it - just that it is an issue which affects, and concerns, women more than men, as female circumcision is for women, and male circumcision is for men.

If we all have privilege, then what the heck is a non-privileged individual? Continuously in this article she says that everyone, including privileged groups are discriminated against and that their grievances are just as valid, but should not be expressed in a forum intended for the grievances of non-privileged individuals. If we all face discrimination that is just as valid, AND we are all enjoy privilege, then how the heck is one non-privileged and one privileged. If we are all equal in that respect, then why the distinction? Why is one group (the so-called privileged...even though all the non-privileged people are privileged too) then supposedly inferior to the other group? Seriously, that is the argument she makes!

The grievances aren't all equally valid. Discrimination against, say, Muslims is more severe than it is against atheists in the USA. This doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't happen to atheists, but that when Muslims are discussing, addressing or otherwise dealing with discrimination against them, that it is wrong for an atheist to go to Muslims "Hey! Stop talking about your issue and look at MY problems!". The correct way to address it would be to listen, and speak on your problems if you're invited to, or if it's relevant to the issue at hand. This addresses it nicely.

This is the phenomenon that’s talked about in The “What About the Mens?” Fallucy, in which a discussion on an issue that primarily affects non-privileged groups is not allowed to continue unless “equal” time is given to how the same issue affects the privileged group. Inequal arguments do not deserve equal airtime!...There is a time and a place for those discussions, but it is not on a thread focusing on issues that affect non-privileged people.

...why do privileged groups have to earn trust, only to then be told that they should give it to non-privileged groups? Simply because non-privileged groups, coming from an insider perspective, are in a position to understand their issues in a way that privileged groups, as outsiders, never can.

That last quote, really? And of course privileged groups come from an insider perspective and are in a postion to understand their issues in a way that non-privileged groups, as outsiders cannot, so why don't non-privileged groups have to earn their trust?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Insider position in the original quote refers to the insider status of discrimination against them as a minority. Likewise, by trust, what it means is that you can be trusted to genuinely and sincerely understand the issues minorities face.

In all honestly Subotan, that article pretty much sums up the exact train of thought so prevalent in modern America that is intent on dividing people rather than building unity. It necessitates that one group either admit their inferior status as oppressors and act in a subservient manner, or be labeled the enemy. I could go on and on debating this dribble with you, but I do not have the time and I think I have said enough on the matter. Let it suffice to say that I think it is BS and that one person's opinion is not any more or less valid or important than another's as she contends, except where expert knowledge is concerned.

As a side note, references to building "national unity" always remind me of similar pleas made in fascist/right wing authoritarian states, and if anything, the United States has been successful because it has tolerated these divisions. For future reference, I'd use a different term.

In terms of your argument, well, I can't say I didn't try. You didn't listen, and it's clear you had a knee-jerk reaction against the article, which is sad.

The thing is though, that anyone who has done the appropriate research can gain expert knowledge in something. Knowledge is not limited by gender or race.

Mhm, that's why I'm taking papers in Political Sociology and Gender Studies at university.

True, you may not know exactly how something makes someone feel, but you can still have in-depth knowledge into its real, practical effects.

This is a normative opinion.

I reject her notions of racial and sexual superiority.

...What? Where does she say that?

Oh, so it is not sexism if a tell a random woman walking by on the streets that I wanna do something indecent to her because she is a bitch? That is not backed up by any power, and their is no institution to protect that type of behavior. Sorry, but you are wrong. Sexism does NOT have to be backed up by power. An intent can be sexist. Also, please explain WHAT behavior? What behavior was sexist (as he insinuated) and obnoxious (as he said)?

As it happens, what you pointed out is a good example of sexism - builders and van drivers do it ALL the time, and women very often don't feel powerful enough to respond critically. Men are

It is a valid question I think. Does he really object to an overwhelming male response (as indicated in his post)? Why, considering that it is a forum with an overwhelming male membership?

If "Male response" means responses along the lines of "Hurr durr abortion is funneh", rather than "I have my own opinions on this, here they are - what does someone with more personal experience (I.e. a woman) have to say about this issue?", then yes, he probably objects. I know I do. Also, that men are a majority here makes it even more important women are treated inclusively.

Really? Here you come and portray women as timid little creatures afraid or unable to participate in a debate with men and yet say the posters on the abortion threads were sexist

As I said, I'm generalising, but quoting feminist, female friends of mine. It's the same phenomenon that makes women unsure about running for public office, or asking for a raise.

Any behaviour in the Backroom that put off black members? You mean racism? Yeah, I agree that racism is not healthy to a discussion and that sexism is not either, but I fail to see how a man stating his opinion is automatically sexism. (You yourself are a man, are you not? You yourself have and express your opinion, do you not?)

Men having an opinion != sexism. What is sexist is when guys frame an issue which primarily concerns women in such a way as to strongly disincentivise women from expressing their opinion on it. This is what happened in-thread.

So in short Subotan, no, I do not consider one race or sex's opinion to be more important than another's. In fact, I believe that that believe is both racism and sexist at its core.

This is so, so wrong. By pretending that these social divisions don't exist, you are helping perpetuate them.

White, American, Heterosexual males (and any other group that you consider 'privileged') have as much a right to express their opinions on any subject as anyone else.
They are not second-class citizens and shouldn't be treated like ones because of their 'privilege'. (and if you treat them like that, then what 'privilege' do they have?

Gee, won't somebody think of the Straight, Able-Bodied, White CiS-Men, and all the discrimination they face today.

Seriously though, saying that members of that group have a problem with expressing their opinion is ridiculous.

My thread is not about abortion, but about offensive language and improper enforcement (usually unwittingly) by moderators. I know that our mods try their hardest, but if people don't point out to them when they mess up, they will not be able to do their job as well as they could.

The mods made the right call, in every single way. Good job mods.

EDIT: collectively mansplaining? Really? "to delighting in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation"

Ok, I have NEVER seen this happen in an abortion thread. I would seriously love to see you back that accusation up. And by collectively, that insinuates that it was group activity. I am a little offended by that accusation.

I've got a link to a post right here.

[Vuk]

I've got a link to a post right here.

I am studying for two tests this week Subotan, so I cannot respond to all of your points right now, but I cannot let this last one go.
Let me post the word's definition again for reference.

to delighting in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in this conversation

Let's take this point by point. First of all, the definition implies that a man is talking to a woman, and you posted an example of where I was talking to you. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are a guy, are you not? Therefore the definition (which in short is being dismissive and insulting toward a woman because of her sex) could not possibly apply to that post.
Nonetheless, let's take it word for word.
First of all, I was not delighting in posting that at all. Second of all, are you telling me that my explanations were condescending? I am sure you think they are inaccurate (obviously, as you disagree with me, but condescending? Slimy certainty? You are saying that my posting was slimy? And why, because I am the man of the conversation? Are you not a man as well?
I am sorry Subotan, but all you are doing now is insulting me. You insults are condescending and inaccurate. You definition more closely resembles your accusation against me than my post. The only difference is that you possess a 'slimy certainty' not because you are a man, but because you are an enlightened friend of the poor, helpless minority!
I apologize if I come across as too harsh, but you are leveling insults at me that are completely inaccurate even though I have only been polite to you.
Also, my rejection of your beliefs is not a 'knee-jerk reaction' any more than your rejection of mine. I have heard those arguments before and have given them considerable thought. It is not a defensive reaction; it is a well thought out position. Yours is, IMHO a position that relies on emotion and exploiting people's natural desire to want to feel like a good person and help and protect the under-dog. The way I see it, it is just another paternalistic, condescending BS approach to make people feel good about themselves. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but you don't have to insult those who disagree with you either.

[Vuk]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to post to the mods that my objection was not the closing of the thread. It was nothing but a spam fest, and I agree that it should have been closed. My objection was simply to the language I quoted in my first post.