Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

I think my issue with this is not necessarily them trying to stop sexism, it is the severity of the punishment.  A perma ban seems harsh unless you are truly harassing someone nonstop, not just saying something rude.

I would think that a warning beforehand would probably work better, along with a clear outline of what is considered unacceptable behavior.

 

That being said, I can see some of what prompts a zero tolerance policy when part of the argument being made is that this behavior is just part of the gaming culture. Which is basically saying - This is okay because I do it a lot and so do other people. Which isn't an excuse anyone would accept from a seven year old, much less people three or four times their age.

 

But seriously, it kind of concerns me that there are people out there who are really worried that they won't be able to not say something that's really offensive and/or abusive to someone. I get that certain words might be a habit that will take a little time to break (which is why I think a warning system wouldn't hurt). But some of the things being said aren't just a crass word, but really offensive comments and insults that take conscious thought to put out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I think a warning system with suspensions and bans being handed out for repeated or more severe issues would be better.

 

I mean, a permaban for repeatedly sending sexually explicit messages makes sense. For calling somebody a stupid b-word does not (unless it's a repeat offense and they ignore all other attempts to stop their language)

 

 

But I agree that it's worrying that people out there think they won't be able to enjoy their game without vulgar language. You can trash talk without using racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. terms...

Share this post


Link to post
I think a warning system with suspensions and bans being handed out for repeated or more severe issues would be better.

I agree with this! biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
But I agree that it's worrying that people out there think they won't be able to enjoy their game without vulgar language. You can trash talk without using racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. terms...

Yes indeed.

 

I'm on one forum where three warnings for whatever (spamming, being rude, just being objectionable - it's a small forum xd.png) get you a permanent ban. It works well. In four years one person is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes indeed.

 

I'm on one forum where three warnings for whatever (spamming, being rude, just being objectionable - it's a small forum xd.png) get you a permanent ban. It works well. In four years one person is gone.

*whistles* Now that's an effective system. smile.gif

 

Good forum, it sounds like.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm on one forum where three warnings for whatever (spamming, being rude, just being objectionable - it's a small forum xd.png) get you a permanent ban. It works well. In four years one person is gone.

Actually, even this kind of system distresses me - a person who will feel like climbing into a hole for a simple warning. I've gotten one on this forum (for habitually posting the kind of reply which on a few other forums is not considered spam, but here apparently was ... I did not even know it could be considered spam, spam was/is properly defined nowhere in the rules) and this actively continues to bother me to this day, though it was, I think, over a year ago.

 

For example I know I might end up sounding a bit more aggressive than I intend when I am sleepy or tired - not because I am more irritable, but because I do not realize that what I write can be interpreted as being hostile. In my mind, I am more often than not being completely neutral. Does it mean I might get a warning without getting a chance to explain what I actually meant?

 

The same with being sexist - sometimes, people will read too much into it and label things which were not meant to be offensive as offensive. Sometimes the beginning of the conversation gets lost - there are people about who will do everything they can to subtly agitate someone till the person takes the bait and says something forbidden. Perhaps the person had an exceptionally bad day and just accidentally let something slip.

- To that purpose, I am against bans and even permanent warnings for single incidents. If someone went around and purposefully harassed someone, then yes. Then kick them out. But not for a single swearword or a sentence which can be interpreted two ways or 'might offend'.

Share this post


Link to post

That's why three warnings not just one smile.gif

 

But I know how you feel. ((hugs))

Share this post


Link to post

It all depends on the specific forum's interpretation of "spam." What may be considered asking for help somewhere else may be eggspam here, for example. Reading the rules very carefully is extremely important, and even then you may make mistakes.

 

So I like the three-warn system. Gives you a chance to learn.

Share this post


Link to post

I by principle do not agree with permanent warnings without expiration-dates for minor offenses. Such as when a person manages to acquire two strikes for using sexist language as a 14-year-old, the one should not be liable to get a ban for accidentally paraphrasing oneself five years later when the one didn't even *intend* to offend. Make the warnings disappear -completely- after, say, three years. People *can* reconsider their views, be it in regards to sexism or otherwise, and unless they commited something truly severe, they should not be 'stained for life' for their past opinions.

 

(OT: I had read the rules, and there was/is no proper definition of spam according to which the post of mine based on which I got the warn should have been considered spam; the only point by what it was counted such was the 'contribution to thread' one, and it is hardly an objective criteria. I personally didn't agree with the particular mod's interpretation of the notion, and I admittedly still do not understand why the alternative I was told would not have been spam was any different from what I posted - mere alteration of wording as far as I could tell.)

Share this post


Link to post
(OT: I had read the rules, and there was/is no proper definition of spam according to which the post of mine based on which I got the warn should have been considered spam; the only point by what it was counted such was the 'contribution to thread' one, and it is hardly an objective criteria. I personally didn't agree with the particular mod's interpretation of the notion, and I admittedly still do not understand why the alternative I was told would not have been spam was any different from what I posted - mere alteration of wording as far as I could tell.)

On the internet, wording is everything. You might use a synonym of a word and find that its connotation is extremely negative! I did that once myself.

 

But why would the warn stay forever? That's foolish, I agree. Do some places do that? I've certainly never seen a forum so strict.

Share this post


Link to post

This very site actually stores warns forever. The warn-meter eventually goes down, but the warning itself stays on your profile indefinitely. It's similar with a large amount, if not most sites.

Also, warnings tend to eventually become misleading since they lose context and therefore informativeness once they outlive all other evidence of what exactly happened.

 

(In my case, the warning-notice has both of the quotes I had in the post not included and the thread the partial quotation came from itself is long gone - in the other words, the thing has no context at all. If I had *actually* posted just that without the quotes, I would have agreed with the mod.)

Share this post


Link to post

This very site actually stores warns forever. The warn-meter eventually goes down, but the warning itself stays on your profile indefinitely. It's similar with a large amount, if not most sites.

Also, warnings tend to eventually become misleading since they lose context and therefore informativeness once they outlive all other evidence of what exactly happened.

*nods* I see your point, but personally I think this system is fine as it is. Assuming, of course, they only throw you out if you fill up your warn meter. Is this the case? *goes to read* (Will edit in a moment)

 

EDIT: I didn't find it listed in the FAQ that they did throw you out for old offenses.

Edited by CrossingStar

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this with a horrifying/hilarious link. It's a Fox opinion article titled "War on Men", and I'll let those facts speak for themselves, draw what conclusions you may.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

 

 

 

 

 

"Women aren't women anymore" wow A+ journalism writing right here people.

 

Women are or are becoming the major earners, so men are relaxing because us wimminz are kicking them out of their rightful place. This somehow leads to more women wanting to get married and have families and fewer men wanting do the same. This assessment is messed up for quite a few reasons, but honestly?

 

GOOD.

 

Let women be the earners if they want. If boys, who have pretty much been systematically taught that they were better, get knocked down a few pegs when they find out that people won't just bow to them, then good because that's life. If those boys then proceed to pout and whine about how they aren't getting handed success or subordination on a silver platter, then good, because who would want someone like that anyway?

 

And a huge, huge, skyscraper-huge middle finger to the ending. "Surrender to my nature" well my nature is telling me some very non-feminine things for what amounts to a "get back in the kitchen" article.

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this with a horrifying/hilarious link. It's a Fox opinion article titled "War on Men", and I'll let those facts speak for themselves, draw what conclusions you may.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

 

 

Somebody needs to tear apart that article, word by word. That's how wrong it is.

Edited by PointOfOrigin

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this with a horrifying/hilarious link. It's a Fox opinion article titled "War on Men", and I'll let those facts speak for themselves, draw what conclusions you may.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

Wow. Possibly all the more bizarre/ironic because it's been written by a woman?

 

Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them.

[..]

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

[..]

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

So some men are supposedly becoming "slackers" and it's all the fault of women, because if women weren't so independent then they'd "step up to the bar"? I think not!

Share this post


Link to post

I read that article the other day and had a 'wtf' look on my face by the end.

 

'Surrender to my nature'? What 'nature'? I'm so 'unfemale' I may as well been born a male (but yet I don't feel my body is 'wrong').

Share this post


Link to post

I would feel wrong if I had a male body... Yet, the rest of my nature still bids me to do what I have been doing all along.

Share this post


Link to post

"Surrender to my nature?" What the heck? I'm not some submissive housewife, and I doubt many of the hard-working, money earning women out there would disagree. How could someone ever believe that women are supposed to be submissive? That's just bull****, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post

It's sad that a woman wrote that article. Funny she isn't taking her own advice and writes books and articles which is a 'man's job' instead of staying at home silent, pregnant, and barefoot in the kitchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Bumping this with a horrifying/hilarious link. It's a Fox opinion article titled "War on Men", and I'll let those facts speak for themselves, draw what conclusions you may.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/

Men have nowhere to go? How about they go to the pedestal women apparently had? You know, rearing the kids, spending all their time in the kitchen, washing clothes, not working, submitting to their woman, letting their woman provide for them and protect them, etc. ;D

 

Oh, but that would be demeaning or something, I suppose. It's against their nature. It's only okay if women do that.

 

 

And, er... But I'm NOT terribly stereotypically feminine by my nature. I'm just not. Never have been, never will be. It's just not in my nature. Lady bits don't mean you're girly--there are straight men more feminine than I am.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, that article is really... just ughh.

 

Seriously? Submit to our nature? But, um, my nature isn't to be feminine or to serve the needs of a man.

 

And who says all women need a "marriageable man" anyway? I'm perfectly happy marrying my girlfriend, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
And who says all women need a "marriageable man" anyway? I'm perfectly happy marrying my girlfriend, thanks.

Well said, my friend. After all, I want nothing more than to be in a relationship with my real-life childhood friend, Jordan. Is that not against what those sick and twisted people claim to be a 'woman's nature?'

Share this post


Link to post
If boys, who have pretty much been systematically taught that they were better, get knocked down a few pegs when they find out that people won't just bow to them, then good because that's life.

No, we haven't. I cannot ever remember being told I am superior to women nor do I assume to be.

Share this post


Link to post
No, we haven't. I cannot ever remember being told I am superior to women nor do I assume to be.

That's Sexism 101, Kestra.

 

And yeah, maybe not outright, because the PC police would be over that more than PCness already is over sexism. But the superiority of males is deeply ingrained in just about everything.

 

Some linkspam from a simple google search of 'sexism in everyday life'. Honestly I could go into social justice blogs but nobody wants that and I'm in class right now so.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/201...sexism-misogyny

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/m...m_n_885430.html

 

http://www.everydaysexism.com/

 

What's the worst thing you can call a guy? Probably the B or C word, which, heyo, that's female! Worst thing you can call a girl? (Ignoring the fact that it's almost always all females = girls and the same doesn't apply for males.) Probably the C or W word.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.