Questions about wrongplanet's mandate ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

Post Reply New Topic

The unwritten, ambuguous rules are probably difficult for a lot of us, but maybe that's an appropriate challenge since we have to deal with unwritten, ambiguous rules in NTland everyday. At least in NTland I can usually get somebody to spell it out for me.

This, however, barely bothers me at all. Maybe for the
same reasons, but I'm not convinced that if I replaced
this with some racial or other grouping that it would
either. I can't see why anyone would be upset by someone
talking about their own feelings in this way could be a threat.

Like if I stated that I'm a racist, or a misogynist. I don't see
a problem with that. But again, calling them on it might get
much better results than any kind of actions from the staff.
Censorship seems a tool which is not well designed for
changing prejudice.

Well, if the rules say they're not supposed to say certain kinds of comments on these forums then the perpetrators should be warned. I have something of an interest in the sexist comments since I have found being an intelligent woman far more of a handicap than Asperger's and this is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Why is it useful for this one to remain unwritten?

I think calandale has a point here.

Yeah I agree, sexism is very wrong, but there should be a balance here, its a good thing to have a balance and not going to an extreme side, one problem I see is interpretation, I think a lot of things can be taken as sexism when is not intended to be (especially when some are venting) surely they must be corrected or asked to clarifify when that hapoens, in a polite manner, when is not fully intended, but I suppose that's not possible, I have seen a very strong and subjective reaction to a comment taken as that bad, whitout giving some benefit of the doubt, I have a feeling that if this goes to an extreme measure will limit men their right for speech especially when it comes to venting out of frustration, as that had happened before.

I have seen some "antigay" comments here, I don't go acusing a person of homophobia or that person for hating gays or someone who supports hate crimes, similar to the mysogyny term, it's curious how that doesn't have that same reaction and opposition, just an observation from me I want to clarify, trying to understand more human behaviour, as I am very dumb about these things.

I believe the aspie traits maybe a big part of this problem, #1 Taking things literally, #2 Failing to comply with social rules.

Where else would you like me to write it?

In the "you must read this before posting" sticky, with the rules themselves?

Done

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... 010#847010

Thank you!

What defines man/women though. My sex is female, my gender is male. So should I be able to post on the women's forum because I'm physically female? Or should I be refused to because I'm male in every sense but genitalia? What about someone whose phsycially male, but whose gender is female?

Perhaps so- perhaps it would help to go about labeling people's speech as sexist, racist, or otherwise wrong. You may have noticed I already do a fair bit of that. Sometimes, I think this is of use. Often times, however, nothing I say will significantly influence the opinions of those I contradict.

What I see as a more serious help, in the long run, is a change in institutional values.

A few months ago I attended a presentation given by a top neurologist hereabouts. One of the most striking things that I took away from her presentation was that there are two situations where the mid-brain, or animal brain (read- instinct and comfort), is likely to overpower the frontal lobe, or primate (read- logic and reason) brain.

The two situations were: under high stress, and, in social situations.

It may well be that less of a tendency to be effected this way is what makes us AS. However, I'm guessing that we are all effected by it, at least somewhat; we all have a strong instinct to agree with those around us. This is why humor is such a powerful tool in manipulating group social interaction; we want to agree, we laugh along with everyone else, and suddenly the parameters of what is laughable have been defined by a single individual pushing the edge.

The positions of those in charge, like the positions of those with particularly keen use of humor, weigh heavier in the balance of social influence.

I also have not nearly enough time to go around telling everyone to agree with me. . **laughing**. . which obviously doesn't stop me from trying.



This is as I understood it too; therefore, the question becomes, "Is providing an emotionally safe environment for female aspies, so that they may benefit equally, part of the purpose of the site? And if so, how important a part?"

Once this is established, we can worry about how much it's worth impinging on free speech in order to fulfill that part of the site's purpose.



OK, let me get this straight. . . it- meaning use of implicitly misogynist language- is laughable because, you don't see how anyone could actually believe it? Because it applies to such a large portion of the population?

You do remember that we didn't get the vote till 1919/1920, right? You do remember that marital rape was legal in some states till 1993? (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/ ... _mrape.php) You remember that beating one's wife was a legally protected right for men for over a thousand years before we got around to deciding it was a bad idea? And you "think the danger of slipping into a situation where people are actually believing
such terms seems infinitesimally small?"

Please, please, clarify here. . . I like you, and I very want to be wrong.

On the second quote. . .

I guess you're right. It is just a legitimate expression of opinion. Why it bothers me?

I've dealt with a lot of rape and battery in my life, and it's hard for me to hear that women have it easy and are out to destroy the world for men out of pure selfishness, immaturity, stupidity, and inconsistency. . . even if that is someone's opinion. I think I do a fairly decent job of treating men fairly despite my experiences- I certainly try very hard; it seems grossly unfair that some of these men seem to have formed their lopsided opinions of women- and me- based on. . . getting dumped? The inability to get a date? A questionable bias in court decisions that don't even directly effect them, that they read about in the news? I can't pretend that I understand what it's like to be a man in post second-wave America- but at least I attempt, and at least I recognize it.

And underlaying all this rhetoric of "women have it easy and now rule the world" seems to run a malicious desire to strip away both the protections of feminism and those of chivalry. It's under the guise of forcing women to choose between the two, but neither of those options, as they have yet been experienced, provide adequate protection against domestic violence; I don't see that removing either one would in any way help matters. I don't find the two to be inconsistent; a code chivalry defined in terms of power rather than gender doesn't strike me as sexist at all. Still, even if I did, I might seek for them both; I'm f*****g tired of myself and my friends getting beaten up, to the point of being pretty well willing to try anything.

I'm even more tired of the social response I see to these situations; "well, it wasn't that bad, it probably won't be happening again. . . "and, "if you want to be protected, you can't be independent." I refuse to give up on the belief, however unfounded, that I deserve both to a)live free of violence and to b)pursue my chosen field of physics, or whatever other thing interests me, regardless of gender and without gender based discrimination.


In this way, attacks against feminism and feminists (as are both ubiquitous and rabid on this site; this post is already quite too long for examples) look to me like attacks against women;
According to my Cambridge learner's dictionary, feminism is "the belief that women should have the same economic, social, and political rights as men."

Is that so hard? Is that so wrong?

I don't get it. To disagree with various branches of radical feminism is only sane; to disagree with the basic idea in all of it's incarnations, and to violently abuse it in speech, strikes me and inherintly misogynist.



I don't know where you're getting that I favor censorship as a tool in fighting these things. As I said before; I'm looking for a clear statement of the rules, enforcement of the rules- whatever they may actually be- and a clear statement of administrative bias, not looking to get the posts removed.

Such a statement of administrative bias need not condone any borderline language; it might read something like this, under the rules post, or somewhere else fairly prominent:

WP, as an open forum run for the benefit of the AS/Autism community, offers a great deal of latitude in the expression of individual opinions when enforcing the above rules; however, we who run WP wish to make it clear that our act in providing this forum for the free expression of those opinions does not constitute agreement with them. The WP administration is in favor of- And then whatever the WP administration is in favor of. I recommend "equal political, social, and economic rights for all human beings regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, or neurological status. . ." But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Sorry for the monster post. . . guess I needed to get that out of my system. Please seriously consider the "statement of administrative bias" idea.

Vitally so, I would assume.


And again. Threats are simply not tolerated.



I've been thinking about this, and the points you
made against it, before I read your response.
And you're right. But, the comment made did not
imply that ALL woman are b*****s, nor do I think
that was the intention. Though, with some of the
changes in the popular usage of the word, I'm less
convinced of even that.



I do think that the danger is small, but maybe that's
just wishful thinking. Probably no smaller than that
of slipping into a purely black vs. white situation again.
But, women hold enough cards right now, that it seems
fairly unlikely that we'd return to the types of thinking
which essentially treated them as property.


This is simply human nature. Once a word gets
co-opted by extremists, it's NEVER going to have
the same meaning. Communism is an outstanding
example. Nothing in the basic principles demands a
totalitarian structure. But, the two are linked inextricably.
In the US, the Green party is being more and more linked
to acts of eco-terrorism, which they have never endorsed.



The site is NOT going to make a clear statement that
comments which some think as misogynistic will be
permitted. Nor (I hope) is enforcement going to include
cutting the quotes that you noted.


This however, seems a good idea.

Thanks muchly.

Um, what did you mean by this?

I was not seeking to threaten- I don't know what I said that sounded like that, or why. I thought I was after legitimate enforcement of the rules, or legitimate alteration of the rules as appropriate to the site's purpose. As I read more I see that there's been some drama lately about censorship, but as far as I know, that's really not what I'm after; I don't know what I'm saying that gives that impression.

I did make a post on the feminism thread in the women's forum that mentioned banning wiggerbeater for posting there, but I was much unaware of what those words actually meant- both, at the time I was unaware that the women's forum isn't really a women's forum, and I was unaware that "banning" refers to kicking someone off the site completely; I'd thought more in terms of that particular discussion or something. Other than this, I'm clueless.

I was referring to threats against members,
and not suggesting that you were making
one. That if someone were actually being
threatened, action would be taken.

Of this I am certain.

Uh. . OK.

Ever since I started posting on this site, I have found a lot of misogynistic comments and believe me, it doesn't do the aspie cause any good. Much as I dislike the term "hate speech", some of the posts certainly have amounted to that and therefore should have been deleted.