Sexism on L&D

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I wouldn't say stuff like that, but I'd like to think it was because I chose to and not because they made me.

And are you saying we should ban speech when it is incorrect?

Okay, I'm starting to see the problem.

I think that this response is better than mine:

Yep...we'd have to define sexist language which denigrates women--a panel made of up men and women should decide this. Anything that denigrates women (and men, transsexuals, intersexuals, etc) should be banned.

I don't think wanting to kiss a woman, or expressing a desire for a girlfriend, is sexist--nor holding doors, nor the other old-fashioned social niceties.

I think displacing anger at one woman on all women could be said to be denigrating all women. Also: the usual sexist stuff like saying woman want to be assaulted, are at fault in rape situations, or saying "all women are dogs." This kind of speech should be banned.

When a young autistic man who is simply trying to compensate for his autism by reading non-verbal cues and has a kiss turn out in an unfortunate way is savaged with terms such as "rape" and "sexual assault," plus those who object to that association are labeled as sexist, then something is wrong. I am appauled. What is really needed is an anti-bullying policy that does not allow someone's autism or misfortunes related to autism to be used for bullying. If any more license is given to the bullies, how bad will things get?

I'll point this out again, the bullies already have an effective license to arbitrarily slam any man with direct and indirect accusations of rape and support of rape. The bullies already have a license to degrade a person based on a misfortune while attempting to compensate for autism and lead a more normal life. What more license should they have? We already know how they operate.

Yep....I think Brian just made a simple mistake. I still hope the friendship will be rekindled.

The subsequent discussion was but one battle in the never-ending Gender Wars of the L & D Subforum of WrongPlanet.

What I really think we should do is dispense with the personal insults (ad hominem insults). Even though they are not meant to be really insulting (they are only used as a rhetorical device), I believe it lowers the standards of the discussion.

I'm a woman and I really don't like salt and vinegar chips because they are like battery acid inside my mouth, they're too sour and they sting and give me mouth sores. I also once read in some magazine that when comes to eating Oreo Cookies, woman are more likely to eat the cream first while men dunk them in their coffee. I don't get the reason why men and women would eat them differently, or how many people of either gender eat Oreos like any old cookie, or why they devote time, money, and research on such silly "experiments", whoever "they" are.

I eat oreos like a woman; I carry my books and sit like a man.

I'm extremely sensitive to taste?most strong-tasting foods bother me. But not salt and vinegar chips. I have raw (and occasionally bloody) lips and cheeks due to dermatillomania, but I actually kind of like the way the salt stings my lips.

Correction its only ok to say "men always do this" but not "women always do this."

SoftwareEngineer and KraftieKortie:

I wanted to bring up the Brianruns topic here. I chose not to because of it being in another thread.

One thing I have noticed around here since the Elliot Rogers crime spree... A lot of people have had some very interesting, and sometimes extreme opinions since. That incident for sure struck the wrong nerve in a lot of people, including myself. I can't help but feel that some people are wasting valuable time, and possibly energy, arguing this with multiple people. Why bother? It appears that there are too many battles being picked and it seems like too much time and effort.

To me, most of the arguments are an exercise in futility--no solution is forthcoming. Nor is any desired. It's obvious there were hard feelings at the source of the argument, hard feelings borne of bad experiences. After a while, it is evident that both sides felt a desire to exhibit their rhetorical adeptness. This is inevitable in a site full off educated people. It's fun to debate, and to one-up each other. I don't think any of the insults are taken personally; it's part of the game. At least, I hope they are not taken personally.

This reminds me of the cartoon where the sheepdog had a job trying to protect the sheep from a wolf (who had a job as well). Both "punched in," and "did their jobs" to the utmost. After they "punched out," however, the sheepdog and the wolf were buddies. I think this is the case here.

I think there should be a panel made up of the pros and cons. They should decide what is offensively sexist language, and should be banned.

What happened with some of the posters, who are rather vulnerable, is lamentable. One made a simple mistake; another just was angry that he couldn't find a girlfriend. Both were lambasted for being "sexist." This was not justified.

I'm appalled a guy was savagely bullied, directly and indirectly, for attempting to function as part of the normal world. And, I'm appalled such bullying of an individual attempting normal techniques autistics are advised to use was tolerated. Isn't Alex Plank a supposed campaigner against bullying of autistics? Doesn't Alex Plank professionally present on the importance and value of autistics learning to use non-verbal cues to function better in the larger world?

POST NOTE:

Good grief!! !! ! Alex Plank recommends this book: "Asperger Love: Searching for Romance When You're Not Wired to Connect"
http://www.wrongplanet.net/article443.html

Here's the kicker: "Here's an excerpt from Pulitzer Prize winning NY Times reporter Amy Harmon's new ebook, "Asperger Love" that profiles Wrong Planet's "Autism Talk TV" co-hosts Jack Robison and Kirsten Lindsmith."

Just read the blurb, here on Wrong Planet. In part, "To Jack, who was 19 and has a form of autism sometimes called Asperger syndrome, her mind was uncannily like his. She was also, he thought, beautiful. So far, they had only cuddled; Jack had hopes for something more. Yet when she smiled at him the next morning, her lips seeking his, he turned away. ?I don?t really like kissing,? he said. Kirsten drew back. If he knew she was disappointed, he showed no sign."

I bought this book and read it months ago after Alex sent out an email blast recommending and promoting it. The young man is the son of John Elder Robison, the noted autistic author!! !! !! ! I just got it out and remembered Alex Plank hawked this book.

Think about it - A young man was savagely punished in this forum for doing what is described in a book promoted by Alex Plank which was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner about the Wrong Planet's "Autism Talk TV" co-hosts Jack Robison and Kirsten Lindsmith.

And, that kind of punishment which was dealt out in this thread http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt261300.html is tolerated. Again, I am appalled.

Last edited by SoftwareEngineer on 23 Jun 2014, 7:46 pm, edited 5 times in total.

I want to go on the record as only liking plain potato chips I won't eat any other kind. But I have given them up recently....

Why did you have to bring potato chips into it?

The way sexism is generally viewed to the public goes like this:

"women belong in the kitchen making sandwitches!" =sexist

"men belong in the garage fixing cars!"=not sexist

I could say the second line is also sexist but ill be booed off stage and called a misogynist for saying so.

Another example:

"women only want money! =sexist

"men only want sex!" =not sexist

^ perfect summation