"TMP = Misogynists R Us?" Topic

Context, as Bill's link pointed out. You should read it.

I'm curious as to why it has to be a reference to girls though and not boys.

Less outraged, more tired of the nonsense and justification you're scrabbling to come up with.

Tradition.

That's it.

Tradition.

The time honored, "You throw like a girl" cannot be beat.

The real problem is the pro-avian agenda that is threatening to turn cats into dogs.

I'm curious as to why it has to be a reference to girls though and not boys.

Well, the phrase "boy's club" or "boys will be boys" can be used negatively against men by women…

Having a daughter changes the way you think about "throw it like a girl".

If I said that the ball is coming back at me swiftly, pretty accurately, and with proud effort.

I never call the girls "guys" they are ladies or girls, it's a pet peeve of mine.

Saw on the news some college's & university's student governments don't like the use of the term "You Guys". When address a group with a mix of any sexes or just one sex. They think it's sexist and demonstrates a male dominated society, etc., and that kind of stuff. At least I think that is what they were trying to say ? What !?!?!?

Indeed it can Bill, although I've not seen groups of women gamers indulging in that here, to date.

As for those who think that a bit of consideration is being a Social Justice Warrior (I assume that is the SJW acronym that Mardaddy is throwing around without actually using against anyone in particular yet) perhaps you don't spend as much time working with young people as I do.

Having taught mixed sexes from five years upwards, I'm not sure what message (other than a negative one) girls are supposed to take from people saying

'Yes, in order to make men/boys feel inadequate, incompetent, lacking or weak, we're going to compare them to you. Don't you worry though, we don't think any the less of you'.

Legion 4 – you could always try 'everyone' instead of 'you guys' if you're unsure with a mixed group.

That is an option Ben, but like I said … I think this might be a bit of "PC overboard" …

Of course more than once in the locker room, gym or military, etc. … when walking into a group of males, to say "Hello Ladies" … No one took offense. It was just a male way of "jerking" their chains, in almost a "playful" manner.

I know in the military … we had more "important" things to be concerned about. Even if it was just getting done what "Higher HQ" wanted us to accomplish. And if nothing else, not get our s chewed out. I'd imagine in big business, etc., they are in a similar situation …

Just say'n … I think there is far too many "PC SJW"* types with this sort of thinking going around. Who really should have more "pressing" things to occupy their waking hours, IMO.

*[Disclaimer – When posting "PC SJW" .. I was NOT referring to any one here … Just a general term/identifier … ]

The time honored, "You throw like a girl" cannot be beat.

You're saying it is an insult to them that they do something in the way a girl does it. I don't know how you can't see how that is negative.

You're saying it is an insult to them that they do something in the way a girl does it.

I must recognize that I have used the "you're behaving like a girl" more than once… usually, when trying to coax my daughter to stop whinning about something.

Truth be told is great fun. Particularly, when they -my kids- jerk my chain telling me how fat and old I am, or when we make fun of my younger being gay. We have a lot of laughs. Never in public, though. Probably they wouldn't understand our particular sense of humor.

The pro-avian agenda is out of control!

I suppose it is difficult to understand these issues if you're really thick.
Is it really so hard? lol.

I must recognize that I have used the "you're behaving like a girl" more than once… usually, when trying to coax my daughter to stop whinning about something.

Truth be told is great fun. Particularly, when they -my kids- jerk my chain telling me how fat and old I am, or when we make fun of my younger being gay. We have a lot of laughs. Never in public, though. Probably they wouldn't understand our particular sense of humor.

That made me like you a lot more.

Not the same thing Basileus. We're not taking about in jokes in families and you are accusing your daughter of being immature. Not comparing her unfavourably with someone else. Not the same thing. Besides which, as per the rules, you wouldn't be able to laugh at someone for being gay here, so why is it deemed okay by some to belittle women?

Ben Avery:

Wait! We can't laugh at homosexuals? But we can laugh at heterosexuals? That seems pretty discriminatory to me. If one group is fair game then so should be the other. We should be equal opportunity offenders in our humour and piss-taking. We owe the gay community equality in law, opportunity and ridicule. Equality means accepting equal rights, equal privileges, equal responsibilities and equal burdens.

Cheers and Liberace was absurd, regardless of his sexuality.
Rod Robertson.

Exactly

Mocking people for *being* gay or straight, male or female, Rod? I would hope not.

Please find another strawman. I'm pretty sure mocking people full stop is against the rules.

Ben Avery:

By this reasoning you can't call a heterosexual man a gigilo if he behaves in a certain way? What about the word stud? Is that verboten too? And is it wrong to call a heterosexual woman a gold-digger if she uses her feminine charms on obliging men for her own benefit? If the gay community can rib us about being breeders then we can poke back in a similar style. As long as mockery does not rise to the level of hate-speech or scape-gloating then it is fine, albeit offensive and objectionable.

I wonder if some think it is never right to mock anyone or anything. Mockery, for better of for worse, is part of human nature and we should build up a tolerance to it rather than trying to sanitize our social intercourse. Denaturing humans is wrong and can lead to ethical allergies and societal anaphylaxis. We must wiggle around in the gutter sometimes in order to build up our mocking-immunity properly or we'll all come down with societal lupus or Chron's disease. A little mud flinging is necessary and healthy.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

You are talking about *behaviours* Rod, not the same thing.

I don't know how you can't see that.

I would be wary, particularly online, of giving people licence to insult when it seems to be a majority mocking a minority.

I game with a large number of people, with a higher than average proportion of women, based on my experience at conventions (I don't know what percentage are gay or straight as it doesn't usually come up) and it is somewhat depressing that people on this thread think it's okay to mock other people *for who they are* rather than anything they might have done. It's also one of the reasons that I don't recommend the site to them.

EDIT: I note that people have been sanctioned regularly for attacking religious beliefs on this board. Feel free to start lobbying for changes in the rules to insult what is a personal choice.

Ben Avery:

Acting on sexual preference, no matter what that preference might be is behaviour. That's why mating strategies in organisms are studied as part of behavioral science/biology. The expression of sexuality is behaviour.

Is it alright to call girls tomboys? In the 18th Century gay women were called 'Tommy' or 'Thom'. This gave rise to our modern term tomboy. But today the pejorative sense is all but lost to most. You can't straight-jacket an entire society and deny its baser nature just to live in a kinder, gentler world. Mockery and other unsavory variations of humour are safety valves which we use to avoid more pathological behaviours which can do real and mortal harm. We can splash ourselves with perfume and roll on the deodorant but alas that does not change the fact that as animals we still stink. Voltaire may have stood on the shoulders of giants but he no doubt had his handkerchief to his nose, being so close to such gargantuan arm pits.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

So to clarify Rod.

Someone who identifies as gay, but is not having sex shouldn't be mocked, because hey, they're not acting on sexual preference?

Someone who is gay and is having sex (regardless of their sex, relationship status, employment status, etc.) is on a par with:

gigolo: a man who is paid to have sex
stud: a man who is considered to be attractive and skilled sexually (hey, a compliment, unless perhaps you're a woman)
gold-digger: someone feigning attraction in order to receive money or other presents

Unless you're throwing those terms around regularly to all the heterosexual men and women in your life (and I would be interested in their response) that does look like a double standard Rod.

p.s. So do you think the rules on mocking religion should be relaxed too? I'm interested to know.

p.s. So do you think the rules on mocking religion should be relaxed too? I'm interested to know.

Ben Avery:

In a word, yes.

Expression of sexuality is not limited to having sex. There are many behaviours which are part of expressing sexuality, be it gay or straight sexuality. Whether one engages in the physical act of sex or not is irrelevant. It is the behaviour of gay or straight people which are fair game for mockery or ridicule if they strike a commentator as absurd or funny. The evaluation occurs in the observer, not the observed.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Excellent – I look forward to your Poll Suggestion then to change the rules. EDIT: I've done it myself. Interesting it took this discussion to bring it up (purely as the observer, rather than the observed).

You still haven't addressed equating being gay with some less than complimentary terms though. How come?

Do you have any examples of 'fair game' that would be appropriate?

p.s. You were talking about 'acting on' preferences and mating strategies re: behaviour that can be mocked, so I think it was reasonable to infer that sex is a fairly key point.

Ben Avery:

All mockery is less than complimentary. It's rude and can be cruel but it's not illegal, nor should it be.

You still haven't addressed equating being gay with some less than complimentary terms though. How come?

I did not equate being gay with less than complimentary terms. I argued that since it is common place to mock heterosexuals for behaving in certain sexual manners, then it should not be illegal to mock homosexuals for behaving in specific sexual matters. The derogatory terms gigilo, stud and gold-digger were applied to heterosexuals, not to gays and no parallel was drawn by me. My point was that if we give license to mock one group then we should be able to mock all groups. Gays are not fair game because they're gay. They're fair game because they're human and falliable just like everyone else. If you wish to build into my argument parallel attacks that were not there, that's your prerogative. But don't try to put words in my mouth by laminating your perceptions upon my statements.

As to fair game, absurdity, hypocracy, hubris, silliness, double standards and anything else an observer perceives as noteworthy is fair game. It should not be against the rules in a society to be rude or offensive. Rather it should be through discussion, argument, criticism and shaming that such expressions of rudeness are controlled by social means rather than by dictate.

Private Internet forums are at the mercy of their controlling interests and thus it is the values of such interests which determines what is allowable and what is not. Our opinions don't really matter much as such forums are not democracies but rather are totalitarian and virtual fiefdoms.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Why are you now taking about legality Rod? This issue arose with reference to the forum. Certain people felt it was okay to belittle people for who they are rather than what they've done.

I'm not sure what 'specific sexual manners' you're referring to though Rod. You made a blanket statement about sexuality and equated it to certain behaviours that a person of any sexuality could take part in. I don't know why you brought them up though. It certainly confuses issues.

I'm glad that you've clarified a little, although your non-sexual examples don't really link to the 'expressions of sexuality' you felt were okay to mock. I do think as they stand they are suitable things to call anyone out on though.

I look forward to your lobbying on the poll suggestion.

I plan to give more money to my daughter over time and if there is anything left after end of life care. I'll explain it to my son (as many times as I need to) before it happens.

Go

[q]My point was that if we give license to mock one group then we should be able to mock all groups.[/q]

The issue with "mocking a group" is not the "mocking" as much as it is the stereotyping that is a prerequisite of the group-mocking. There is no law against stereotyping people. It is however, an indication that the person doing the stereotyping (or group-mocking) doesn't know what they are talking about, at the very least, to put it in the most PC fashion.

Stereotypes exist because of observed patterns of behavior.

Obviously not everyone will fit within a given stereotype, but the majority will.

Stereotypes exist because of observed patterns of behavior.

Sometimes, sometimes not.
Some stereotypes start with a joke/lie/misunderstanding and simply take on a life on its own.

Sometimes one group actually believes a stereotype about another. Sometimes everyone knows it's just a long lived joke.

I have yet to experience a joke that popular enough and widespread enough to spawn a stereotype.

Now the popular stereotype of, "Women are terrible drivers" exists because of a majority of women drivers are perceived as terrible drivers, not some joke.

So the 'terrible women drivers' would be a stereotype based on ignorance rather than a joke, or observable behaviour, yes?

And I think the Simpsons were responsible for 'Cheese eating, surrender monkeys', weren't they?

I quickly conducted an informal poll and the pollees all admitted that they have observed egregious driving behavior and in almost all cases it was a female driver.

So, you're reinforcing a stereotype, not forming one. :)

Statistics suggest that women do take longer to pass and find parking more difficult, but are better at getting from a to b without incident and violating traffic laws. That doesn't square with 'terrible'.

Can I just clarify, that you think it's okay to demonstrate prejudice against anyone, based on nationality, race, sex, religion and/or category you want to come up with, based on what a few people might have noticed and/or demonstrated, because stereotypes are probably true and it doesn't really matter if you're wrong in applying them anyway?

Where were you with this bold statement on the mockery thread?

So if stereotypes are true, does that mean TMP is actually misogynist?

Pretty clear from this thread that some members don't even recognize their own misogyny.

Is TMP a haven for it? No. But to deny that it doesn't exist here is absurd.

Yes, I freely practice prejudice against anyone who is not me.

And I believe, "reinforcing a stereotype" is the phenomenon experienced when someone acts in a manner that matches stereotypical behavior.

…and thus the danger of stereotyping groups of people, particularly when the insurance companies, who do more than conduct quick polls, disagree.

Excellent choice of topic. Can you only make digs about women, or were you just saving them up for this thread?

Beyond 'I don't like that I'm not supposed to be rude to/about people for no good reason anymore', there's nothing much more to come from you, is there?

So if stereotypes are true, does that mean TMP is actually misogynist?

No … but we're fat, bald, and don't shower.

Are you going to be okay Ben?

Should we find you a safe space to rest in?

Perhaps hang some trigger warnings on the wall.

Be careful you don't strain something in your eagerness to white knight.

Grow up.

No … but we're fat, bald, and don't shower.

I shower !!!!

Really? That's the best you can do? The only person in danger of straining anything is you after all the goalpost moving and trying to evade the point.

I have no idea whether you actually believe what you're writing, not do I particularly care. Think what you like. Stop making nonsensical and prejudiced statements and I'll stop calling you on it.

I'm sure Ben is absolutely fine as he is a reasonable bloke making a number of cogent points and not resorting the sort of silly nonsense we've just seen by way of a riposte, indeed I take my hat off to him, I for one couldn't be bothered arguing about stuff like this on the internet.

… or perhaps everyone who voices concern about the treatment of women isn't a delicate flower that would wilt in direct sunlight and everyone who does not carry the banner is not a three meter tall, radioactive statue of male genitalia … wait, no .. that can't be right … never mind … carry on …

See? I told you cats could drive!

youtu.be/l_hwerqogzQ