Sexism on L&D

Post Reply New Topic

You can count it if you wish, but again, it could be easily manipulated and I'd rather see one that's NOT being conducted by someone with a stake in the outcome if it's to be taken seriously. Seems pretty logical to me. Either way, 69 votes does not a consensus make in a community of tens of thousands and if it were me who was working on the moderation policy regarding sexism I wouldn't be discouraged away from it because 33 people disagree with the action to want to moderate sexism like all of the other 'isms' that are moderated more aggressively.

most people will consider a poll that used 1500 people to represent the population of 320million

i would require at least 150 million to consider any such poll but I've always been told I'm wrong.

I too see hostility towards women on this forum sometimes and it even makes me feel unwelcome and unpleasant. However, I'm stuck when it comes to the question of 'what to do about it'.

Considerations:
1. *I* may find it unpleasant, but is that really an argument to shut up someone else?
2. Even though the tactic of 'making them look like a fool' obviously doesn't work that well, I somehow like it when people are honest about their feelings. I want to know (purely speaking for myself here) what's going on.
3. I recognise that some attitudes towards women are very hostile. But on the other hand, people should feel free to express themselves to a certain extent. For example I object to racism, but still, there's a certain clash of individual rights and liberties.
4. Does it help anything or anyone if we actually crack down on sexism?

I genuinely don't know. I also don't know/doubt the point of banning such a thing. I face enough sexism and harassment in daily life, but will just shutting them up help?

It's partially a rhetorical question and partially not, meaning that I genuinely question it. So I voted that I don't quite know at this point.

Interesting. In principle, you have impeached the validity of a new set of rules being presented by a proportionatly tiny group as representing the general membership. In effect, you are telling us that 69 people out of more than 80,000 indicates the subject is disinteresting, consistent with no sense of a real problem. If the new rules group can muster 30 supporters, that is less than 0.000375% of the total membership - on some days, 30 is less than the number of new members. So, what we see in a lack of interest on the part of most, and a preponderance of "No" on the part of those who are interested.

Again, I think the new rules group shot themselves in the foot. I think many are wondering "What would have happened to Brian, if the new rules were in place?"

You are forgetting that what it's really going to come down to is what ALEX thinks, so it's going to be one person deciding for everyone regardless of your poll.

What you're describing sounds more like apathy. I see gross amounts of apathy in the world when it comes to a whole host of global issues, but that doesn't mean we should all stop caring about those issues and it certainly doesn't disprove the existence of the issue itself. The fact that this topic of discussion has sort of taken the internet by storm currently and in the recent past would suggest to me that there must be some sort of problem.

I think the discussion should continue by all means, it's the only way any sort of change ever happens, but I'm not going to take the poll overly seriously. You are free to if you so wish...

Actually, you understand my point. I doubt Alex Plank will be impressed by a proportionally tiny group of people who want rules enacted so they can do worse than accuse an autistic guy who tried to read non-verbal cues of sexual assault. Take a look at the book in this link, as it appears here on WrongPlanet.net:

"Asperger Love: Searching for Romance When You're Not Wired to Connect"
http://www.wrongplanet.net/article443.html

Here is some of that blurb:

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... ...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...

Imagine if the girl in the story, whose attempted kiss was rejected, came to the Love and Dating sub-forum for support and got told what she did was attempted sexual assault. Then, she gets a stern warning from the moderators as the last post of her thread, the thread gets locked, and a foundation is being built to eventually ban her from WrongPlanet.net. Essentially, Alex Plank would be in the position of encouraging behavior which the rules of his site would be used to cast as a form a sexual assault, nearing the level of rape. Plus, those who attempt to support her are, at best, treated as sexist and insensitive to rape, at worst, accused of justifying sexual assault. Regarding what would be the practical effect of the new set of rules, go back the the thread below and imagine what would happen to that girl. Next, imagine the same scenario, but with an expanded set of enforcements. Then, imagine Alex Plank, the owner and top administrator of WrongPlanet.net, being asked how a girl who followed a book he recommended on WrongPlanet.net ended up being treated that way on the same web site where Alex promotes that book. Again, take a look at the full book blurb linked above, then read through what happened to Brian, in the thread linked below.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt261300.html

Last edited by SoftwareEngineer on 28 Jun 2014, 8:18 pm, edited 6 times in total.

70 or so votes is not too bad when you consider it as a proportion of the number of current active users. How many active users do we have at this moment? I can only give a very rough estimate of it not being more then 200 hundred at most. So as a representative sample 70 is more then enough.

As far as being manipulated I would find that pretty far-fetched. I don't see that kind of behind the scenes organization here.

But I think these polls are mainly for us and a kind of self assessment. Changes are notoriously difficult for members or even moderators to make. In general the owner sets it up initially and then rarely alters it.

That's roughly what I'd guessed even before this issue came up. Polls often call statewide elections here in MN on a sample size of 800, and we have about 5.5 million people and maybe 3/4 turnout.

I actually didn't vote, because I don't think that this sort of issue's good for a yes/no poll like this.

I've also often wondered how many active members there really are; I've heard the mods say 4,000-6,000, at any given time, but I'd agree that the number of long term actives is probably below 1,000.

I'd also agree that change isn't likely, even if the poll was going the other way, just from my own experience with the site. I mean the place is practically falling apart from neglect and there are all sorts of issues that beyond what most people see that are way ahead on the priority list. That, and no one has really put anything forward, let alone anything convincing.

I doubt it if more than 200 users are frequent visitors to L & D.

Good point. If the matter is so obvious to them, why would coming up with a formal suggestion take months? If others have an acceptable system which works, why not just copy-and-paste? Like the Equal Rights Amendment, there are bilateral implications, which is why the ERA was abandoned.

SoftwareEngineer, you keep bringing the "heinous attacks" on Brian for his post about misreading signals and kissing a friend. I'm not sure what thread you were reading, but NO ONE was attacking Brian for having done that.

Brian made a judgment error, his friend didn't like it. Intermission. I hope the end of the story is that they restore the friendship.

What was being attacked was widespread support of the notion that that sort of action is a perfectly legitimate way to "test the waters" with a woman. There was a lot of "eh, it didn't work this time, don't stop trying" sentiment in that thread. The women (and men) who objected to the legitimacy of a tactic like that are concerned that notions like those perpetuate the climate of women as objects to be "gotten." That simple.

When in doubt, ASK. How hard is that? I guarantee the woman involved has an opinion on the matter, and if she does not appreciate plain speaking, she's probably a lousy match for an Aspie anyway.

So, you are telling us that referring to what he did as "sexual assault" combined with all of the insistence that rape was absolutely relevant to the discussion isn't an attack on Brian? Isn't part of the big push for new rules partly based on contention that great harm is cause by seemingly small things that are implicitly significant?

Here is just one exchange in which what Brian did was cast as sexual assault.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp6110598.html#6110598

And then, there is this association with rape:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp6120052.html#6120052

What we see is you really feel the above occurrences are trivial and the effects they can have are negligible - or, perhaps, you really do fully understand the possible effects.

I suppose you could be a weasel and say he was not directly named in the post, so those statements were not directed at him, but considering the context of the thread, it was obvious who was included in the beating. Remember, Brian started the thread to discuss his kiss. However, there is an interesting implication of your position: If no person was explicitly named, then "NO ONE" was attacked. Do you believe such logic should be rolled into the new set of rules?

Last edited by SoftwareEngineer on 29 Jun 2014, 12:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In a post above, in this thread, I talk about a book recommended by Alex Plank for people to learn about the complexities and differences of autistic dating.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp6132460.html#6132460

Do you think Alex Plank; the author of the book, Amy Harmon; and the two individuals in the book, Jack Robison and Kirsten Lindsmith, are encouraging abuses of women? Do you think a separate thread to discuss that topic would be good? Perhaps, a poll?

Two reasons:

One, I'm the one who volunteered to do it, and I'm a single mother with a more-than-fulltime job and a kid to prep for sleepaway camp. I'm back now after much-needed vacation and working on this today before things get frightening again at work. (You're welcome.)

Two, as many people have pointed out, this isn't an NT community, it's an autistic community. Things that may seem blindingly obvious to others may not be obvious at all here. Concrete examples will be important. Ordinary social education and networks cannot be assumed. There are also unusual issues to do with touch, rejection, and knowing how one feels. As the disco panic about banning showed, moderation policies also need special attention, because for many this is an important, even necessary haven. So boilerplate can help, but copy/paste, probably not.

Last edited by tarantella64 on 29 Jun 2014, 12:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.