The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

Okay, well why not just say that in the first place instead of claiming that I'm being all lazy and unfair and trying to one-up you etc etc. I misinterpreted you, you've cleared up the misunderstanding, case closed.

I don't think telling me to "shoosh" just because I took the time to explain my words after you took such umbrage with them does you much favour though. If you don't want me to even talk to you then don't say something about me that I'm quite obviously very likely to respond to.

Its an obviously unreasonable thing for anyone to believe and nothing about about the line suggests I believe it unless you've been too lazy to read the context. You're insulting my intelligence by thinking I believed it and are now patronizing me further by explaining your actions in unnecessary detail. Please just stop.
 
But do you assume misogyny if they are disrespectful and belittle your position just because they disagree?
That depends on if I observe them routinely belittling and putting down other women. If they do, I have a higher tendency to assume misogyny. If they don't, I assume they are jerks.

And yes, I know that some people can be jerks to everyone, male or female.

My own anecdote. I was part of a twelve member team, of which ten were male and two were female. An opportunity came up for a team leader position on another team (standard practice in this company was to fill such openings from outside the team under some theory that elevating someone to supervise people they had been shoulder to shoulder with the day before was a bad idea) and many people on our team were qualified. Our own team leader's recommendation would be expected to carry a lot of weight, and the guy who was recommended did get the job.

Four other guys, who I thought were probably better qualified did not get the recommendation. We all agreed that the guy who did was qualified though, and even though we thought he only got the nod because he was a shameless butt kisser the four guys settled back in and we got on with our own team's work. One woman, who might also have been a little better qualified, filed a discrimination suit.

The point being that when the butt kisser got the recommendation it was because he was a butt kisser, not because he wasn't a woman...but she took some sort of special offense to it that the men in the exact same situation did not take.
Of course I have no idea of the exact circumstances, but if I were a woman who got passed over in favor of a man who was less qualified and demonstrated no other extraordinary positive reasons to get the recommendation, I'd suspect discrimination. Whether or not I'd sue, I don't know.

My mother once got fired from a job and replaced by someone with less experience, but that was more of an age discrimination thing (her replacement was half her age). Her boss also had this to say about her personality: She "wasn't bubbly enough." Why being "bubbly" is a requirement to work the front desk of a small hotel, I can't fathom. Anyway, she sued and got a settlement from them for wrongful dismissal.
 
Of course I have no idea of the exact circumstances, but if I were a woman who got passed over in favor of a man who was less qualified and demonstrated no other extraordinary positive reasons to get the recommendation, I'd suspect discrimination. Whether or not I'd sue, I don't know.

I'm torn on this one. You may be right, but then life isn't fair - even in a world without misogyny, plenty of women would still be treated unfairly on a regular basis.
 
A detailed post on the "death" of gamergate, it's misogynistic overtones, beginnings and why it ultimately harms gamers more than it helps them:

http://deathofgamergate.tumblr.com/

...

The story goes that Quinn got into a relationship with a guy shortly after he wrote a piece on her involvement in a scrapped webseries. The guy then went on to write for Kotaku, where he never reported on Quinn again. Somehow, this non-story got spun into a whole web of accusations about bias and corruption in the media, failing to identify a single instance of alleged bias in the journalist’s writing. Even now, people still accuse Quinn of sleeping with journalists to generate good press and/or reviews for her games, yet have been unable to provide any examples of this actually occurring.

The hysteria of GamerGate has, amongst other things, reduced the concept of a “conflict of interest” to absurdity. Are gamers simply unaware of how industry - not just video gaming, but any industry - functions? Do they think restaurant critics are not friendly with chefs? Film critics with actors? Music critics with musicians? Without relationships, there can be no reputation-building, no insight, no nuance or holistic understanding of subject matter. To reduce every point of interest to a presumptive conflict, as GamerGate does, both fundamentally misunderstands and kneecaps journalism, and will inevitably result in journalists getting worse, not better.

The unfortunate thing is that there is certainly corruption and a lack of ethics in many pockets of the video game industry’s journalistic wing. Suspect sponsorships and payola have been standard for years; anyone remember when Jeff Gerstmann got fired from GameSpot way back in 2007 after writing a middling review of Kane and Lynch, advertisements of which were plastered all over the website? Where was GamerGate back then? Why did it take The Zoe Post, a story utterly bereft of actual corruption, to galvanize gamers into pushing back against these entrenched practices?


No matter how desperately GamerGate proponents try to sweep this detail under the rug, the fact is that they only got truly interested in this subject when there was a woman to sexually shame for it. And that’s more damning than anything in The Zoe Post.

...
 
Its an obviously unreasonable thing for anyone to believe and nothing about about the line suggests I believe it unless you've been too lazy to read the context. You're insulting my intelligence by thinking I believed it and are now patronizing me further by explaining your actions in unnecessary detail. Please just stop.

Look, I'm being entirely reasonable and explaining what I meant. You're being an argumentative... person. Please just stop yourself. I mean this IS a RD thread is it not? Does that even mean anything? I'm trying not to get personal and insulting but you're making it really difficult not to. I've said what I said, and I've explained why I've said it. Either accept my explanation or don't, but either way just move on and stop telling me that I'm lazy, that I'm insulting you and that I'm patronising you. I don't see how it's patronising or insulting to go back over what I said and explain what I meant by it when I get specifically challenged on what I meant. I'm not the one keeping this going (unless you count replying to your obviously antagonistic and provocative statements).
 
The point being that when the butt kisser got the recommendation it was because he was a butt kisser, not because he wasn't a woman...but she took some sort of special offense to it that the men in the exact same situation did not take.

It sounds like she had grounds to complain of discrimination. I'm guessing you mean she filed for SEXUAL discrimination though, which seems less justified. However, if it was such an open secret within a group of 12 of you that essentially half of you got unfairly passed over for a promotion, you have to wonder if how the 4 men handled it (i.e., not at all) is any better. I have more sympathy for her twisting the truth since she'd basically got screwed over anyway. In those circumstances, why not?

Edit:
Manchild
 
It sounds like she had grounds to complain of discrimination. I'm guessing you mean she filed for SEXUAL discrimination though, which seems less justified. However, if it was such an open secret within a group of 12 of you that essentially half of you got unfairly passed over for a promotion, you have to wonder if how the 4 men handled it (i.e., not at all) is any better. I have more sympathy for her twisting the truth since she'd basically got screwed over anyway. In those circumstances, why not?

Edit:
Manchild

Thing is, the butt kisser was qualified. Who was most qualified, as always, was a subjective call. Since our boss at the time was, shall we say, susceptible to a little nose up the butt his favorite got the recommendation. Everyone knew it was coming, and while probably unfair in some great cosmic scale of justice everyone except the woman knew that's just how it goes sometimes in office politics and had nothing to do with gender...until she made it about gender.

The ensuing uproar made everyone miserable, and since my view has always been 'I was looking for a job when I found this one' I just left. She dropped the issue on a promise that she would get the next team leader position to open up, which turned out to be when our boss got promoted so in defiance of normal policy she got moved up to lead the team she was on...which promptly imploded. That lead to a swap with another team leader, and that team imploded as well. She got busted back down to her previous position and sued them again. By then so many of the people I had worked with had either left or transferred out that I don't know how it went from there.
 
I'm torn on this one. You may be right, but then life isn't fair - even in a world without misogyny, plenty of women would still be treated unfairly on a regular basis.
I have to admit, I've only worked in offices on very temporary terms, and received the :pat: attitude from a male supervisor during that time. It was the Returning Officer for the federal riding of Red Deer, and that election, I had actually been hired as a Revising Agent (ie. going door to door, revising the voter's list) and my partner and I were required to also put in time in the office answering the phones. We got a 3-minute "training" speech for that (no written instructions) so I was a bit lost at first. I very soon came to loathe our male boss for how he talked - very impatient and dismissive.

Most of the time I worked for myself, and so there were no workplace hierarchy issues between men and women. There was one client who figured he'd dump a gallon of cologne on himself, and then try to "pay" me by taking me out to dinner. I told him that's not how it worked, and that was the last I saw of him (good riddance).
 
Thing is, the butt kisser was qualified. Who was most qualified, as always, was a subjective call. Since our boss at the time was, shall we say, susceptible to a little nose up the butt his favorite got the recommendation. Everyone knew it was coming, and while probably unfair in some great cosmic scale of justice everyone except the woman knew that's just how it goes sometimes in office politics and had nothing to do with gender...until she made it about gender.

The ensuing uproar made everyone miserable, and since my view has always been 'I was looking for a job when I found this one' I just left. She dropped the issue on a promise that she would get the next team leader position to open up, which turned out to be when our boss got promoted so in defiance of normal policy she got moved up to lead the team she was on...which promptly imploded. That lead to a swap with another team leader, and that team imploded as well. She got busted back down to her previous position and sued them again. By then so many of the people I had worked with had either left or transferred out that I don't know how it went from there.
Wonderful story about how discrimination issues, regardless of which, can be and often are abused. Why take it personal when you can claim sexual, ethnic, age, etc -discrimination? Maybe she felt being treated unfairly, but unless you've got some legislation privilege, you just have to man up.

I do think the there's a need for legalised protection from discrimination, but perhaps there could be some retribution if it turns out you weren't discriminated and you just slandered the other party.
 
And then nobody will sue because of the uncertainty inherent in lawsuites.

Now if your lawsuite is purely abusive, it's one thing, but a general "if we decide against you you have to pay"? That would destroy the point.
 
I have to admit, I've only worked in offices on very temporary terms, and received the :pat: attitude from a male supervisor during that time. It was the Returning Officer for the federal riding of Red Deer, and that election, I had actually been hired as a Revising Agent (ie. going door to door, revising the voter's list) and my partner and I were required to also put in time in the office answering the phones. We got a 3-minute "training" speech for that (no written instructions) so I was a bit lost at first. I very soon came to loathe our male boss for how he talked - very impatient and dismissive.

A lot of supervisors might be unhappy about being put in charge of untrained temporary workers and let that show because they're bad leaders, not because they're sexist. I remember the contempt we had towards territorial soldiers - 'you belong in the reserves' was a grave insult. I can imagine a regular NCO dismissing even a territorial soldier's good ideas out of hand simply because most of what they said and did was amateur or just stupid.

I do think the there's a need for legalised protection from discrimination, but perhaps there could be some retribution if it turns out you weren't discriminated and you just slandered the other party.

I presume the wronged party could bring a counter-suit - although the legal costs are usually punishment enough. Hammurabi had false accusers punished as if they had committed the crime in question, which could lead to interesting results. Mandatory diversity training?
 
Brennan, look at who is over represented in writing, interpreting and judging the law.
I'ev acknowledged that there are gender divides. I am asking for someone to show me that they are caused by sexism. Every time you repost that there are gender divides you reinforce the fact that you are unable to make your case.
A man sarcastically dismisses a woman and women's points of view in a thread about misogyny.
A poster, posts that 'anecdotes are not evidence' on the internet. Let's not try to make this about my gender. That's just dishonest.

I'm not being rude. It's a valid observation because you are clearly failing to understand how analogies work in practice.
I've already rebutted this, it's a completely invalid analogy. You are repeating yourself to no end.

I'll ask in straightforward English in the hope of avoiding this pointless back-and-forth: what is the evidence that gender divides in places like the UK originate from sexism? Please, note that, as pointed out above, evidence of gender divides themselves cannot possibly inform as to their origin.

Valka d'ur said:
Thank you for illustrating exactly why most of the female members of CFC prefer not to come to OT.
Neither do most of the male members.

Brennan, thank you for the disrespect you have shown by your "creative" spelling of my username.
You're pleading victimisation because of a hyphen?????

here's my take: It's often more a matter of how something is said that raises the misogyny flag than the bare words themselves. And context does matter.

I felt the crack about anecdotes was disrespectful.
Anecdotes =/= evidence is not a crack. It's a common meme used to remind people that use of personal experience has little place in a quality debate.

Please stop calling me misogynist and begging victimisation just because i'm holding you to the same standard as I would and often do hold those who claims to 'know' that mind reading works, or to have 'experienced' god.
 
Just about everything I come across regarding feminism plays the same 'men are evil and will &%*£ anything that moves' stereotype.

Feminists complain about oppression and other stuff all the time, yet they love their 50 Shades of Gray.
 
I'ev acknowledged that there are gender divides. I am asking for someone to show me that they are caused by sexism. Every time you repost that there are gender divides you reinforce the fact that you are unable to make your case.
A poster, posts that 'anecdotes are not evidence' on the internet. Let's not try to make this about my gender. That's just dishonest.


I've already rebutted this, it's a completely invalid analogy. You are repeating yourself to no end.

I'll ask in straightforward English in the hope of avoiding this pointless back-and-forth: what is the evidence that gender divides in places like the UK originate from sexism? Please, note that, as pointed out above, evidence of gender divides themselves cannot possibly inform as to their origin.

Neither do most of the male members.

You're pleading victimisation because of a hyphen?????

Anecdotes =/= evidence is not a crack. It's a common meme used to remind people that use of personal experience has little place in a quality debate.

Please stop calling me misogynist and begging victimisation just because i'm holding you to the same standard as I would and often do hold those who claims to 'know' that mind reading works, or to have 'experienced' god.

Pre-emptively dismissing as anecdotes is most certainly a crack.

Yo, before I even think about lifting a finger for a guy who looks at the House of Commons and doesn't see sexism, what kind of evidence would you accept?

Just about everything I come across regarding feminism plays the same 'men are evil and will &%*£ anything that moves' stereotype.

Feminists complain about oppression and other stuff all the time, yet they love their 50 Shades of Gray.

What have you encountered regarding feminism?
 
Perhaps it does change nothing. It certainly doesn't change my opinion that it was a very, very generous reading of his posts.

You're certainly free to think wrong things. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. I'm sure Cheezy agrees on this point.

I have a problem with people assuming that their non-mainstream definition is the only right one and anyone using a different one is wrong. Big problem.

That is also quite rich.

I've already rebutted this, it's a completely invalid analogy. You are repeating yourself to no end.

I'm repeating myself because your rebuttal consists of a demonstration of your failure to understand a simple analogy and how an analogy works. What can I do but to try to explain the analogy and how an analogy works?
 
Pre-emptively dismissing as anecdotes is most certainly a crack.

Yo, before I even think about lifting a finger for a guy who looks at the House of Commons and doesn't see sexism, what kind of evidence would you accept?



What have you encountered regarding feminism?

before worrying about the house of commoms, one would need to look at local "boys clubs '' where the power brokers actually meet and decide who gets funded for things like that....

in 2014...
Royal & Ancient golf club in St Andrews plans to drop ban on female members

After 260 years of men-only policy, R&A has written to members asking them to support rule change

<and>

In August 2012, the Augusta National golf club &#8211; the setting for the US Masters &#8211; abandoned its own longstanding ban on female members and invited the former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and South Carolina financier Darla Moore to join

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/27/royal-and-ancient-golf-club-st-andrews-drop-ban-female-members

sure most golf clubs admit women now but it was along hard battle to get into the boys club (a club of traditionally rich white males) and where a lot of bussiness and power broking was done...
 
A lot of supervisors might be unhappy about being put in charge of untrained temporary workers and let that show because they're bad leaders, not because they're sexist. I remember the contempt we had towards territorial soldiers - 'you belong in the reserves' was a grave insult. I can imagine a regular NCO dismissing even a territorial soldier's good ideas out of hand simply because most of what they said and did was amateur or just stupid.
Elections Canada is very smart in some ways and incredibly stupid in others. One of the stupidities is that they provided ZERO written instructions on what to say to the people who phoned in, looking for answers to various problems. Rattling off a bunch of verbal points on a list isn't good enough, especially for people who are visually oriented rather than aurally oriented.

A two-hour training session plus a huge manual to study for working at the polling station? Fine, no problems. Training session plus a manual for revising the voter's list? Helps, but it didn't cover some situations, nor were we told what to say when people got overly hostile (honestly, folks: election workers and census takers interview so many people per day that we don't remember 99.9% of the information past the next 2 minutes, but give attitude or threats, and you've guaranteed you'll be remembered - and reported). Answering the phones, dealing with people who have a wide variety of concerns with getting on the voters' list, where to vote, when to vote, eligibility to vote, riding boundaries, and so on... 3-minute spiel from one of the permanent office workers, who was annoyed when asked to repeat something.

Would a female Returning Officer have been more patient? I have no idea. But this guy was a jerk.

Neither do most of the male members.
I would be very surprised to hear that their reason was because of the tendency of the female OT regulars (all one of us; there used to be more, but they're more like 'barely occasional' now, rather than regular) to dismiss them as unworthy of being taken seriously ("You can't be a man! Men don't play Civ! Men don't play computer games! Men don't watch/read science fiction! Why do you think you have a valid opinion on men's fashions - mind your own business!").

You're pleading victimisation because of a hyphen?????
Take a look. Note the circled username. Compare that to the version you keep posting. It's not that hard to spell; most others here can do it, and if they find it difficult to recall what gets capitalized or where the apostrophe goes, they are free to call me 'Valka'. It's disrespectful to deliberately misspell anyone's username. Once can be a typo. Twice, especially when accompanied by a dismissive put-down, is deliberate.

If you have trouble with my username, try highlighting it, then use copy/paste. That's what I do with people here whose usernames I tend to have trouble with. That way I don't insult them by consistently getting it wrong.

It's a simple thing called "courtesy."

valka-dur-cfc-sept102014_zps6930411e.png


Anecdotes =/= evidence is not a crack. It's a common meme used to remind people that use of personal experience has little place in a quality debate.
This thread is a discussion, not a debate.

Please stop calling me misogynist and begging victimisation just because i'm holding you to the same standard as I would and often do hold those who claims to 'know' that mind reading works, or to have 'experienced' god.
You should see my comments in the "Ask an Atlanteologist" thread...

I and others here pointed out that you are being rude and dismissive about my posts. Senethro stated that you, a man, are being dismissive of a woman's posts in a thread about misogyny. Nobody actually called you a misogynist.
 
Back
Top Bottom