Judge Mental's Sexism and Misogyny Topic

[CVByrne]

I assume like everything because people have different views on what exactly is sexist or sexism that leaves most of it open for individuals to decide for themselves what they deem as such. 

It's clear however if the comments aren't moderated then they comply with the forum and moderators standards for such.

FWIW admiring female beauty and attractive women isn't sexist. Commenting by saying "she's hot" isn't sexist. Even though a section of your usual SJW brigade would see it as such. They are in fact a minority of society. 

[VILLAMARV]

Great thread btw @mjmooney. Genuinely got me thinking all yesterday while I was painting away. Where is the line of acceptability when it comes to public behaviour.

I mentioned briefly somwhere a family member being enthralled by that pimp in Romanian jail. Now there's some dangerous misogyny.

I'm not sure looking at a nice bottom in yoga pants as it walks past you in the street or the pub or wherever really constitutes a feeling of superiority or sense of entitlement associated with sexism, but it's nice to know amongst the regular posters its the prevailing go to topic of discussion.

Although I like to try and surround myself with progressive thinking people as much as possible I've still had a friend (or I should say ex-friend) sent down for sexually abusing women. And of my female friends there are countless stories of violence, spiking, sexual abuse and date rape

[blandy]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

It's clear however if the comments aren't moderated then they comply with the forum and moderators standards for such.

That’s completely incorrect. You appear to assume that the moderators are omnipresent and read every post, checking each for compliance. That is not correct. Site moderation relies on posters and readers as well as moderators.

[VILLAMARV]

7 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I assume like everything because people have different views on what exactly is sexist or sexism that leaves most of it open for individuals to decide for themselves what they deem as such. 

Nah, we've got dictionaries and a Legal definition of sexual discrimination. People can think what they want but that doesn't bastardise definition imo.

[VILLAMARV]

10 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

FWIW admiring female beauty and attractive women isn't sexist. Commenting by saying "she's hot" isn't sexist.

I agree with this bit

[bobzy]

10 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

FWIW admiring female beauty and attractive women isn't sexist. Commenting by saying "she's hot" isn't sexist. Even though a section of your usual SJW brigade would see it as such. They are in fact a minority of society. 

Nobody would say that’s sexist.

[CVByrne]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s completely incorrect. You appear to assume that the moderators are omnipresent and read every post, checking each for compliance. That is not correct. Site moderation relies on posters and readers as well as moderators.

Yes,  as in if the moderators are alerted to something you will make a decision on if that was a breach of the forums guidelines or not. If someone posts something, another reader alerts you to it and you deem it ok. That's situation I'm referring to.

[CVByrne]

4 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Nah, we've got dictionaries and a Legal definition of sexual discrimination. People can think what they want but that doesn't bastardise definition imo.

I totally agree, there is legally a definition. Though we long moved past legally to what people morally view as something. So legally sexist to personally offensive. The former is defined for a society the latter is down to every individual to determine what they feel is offensive to themselves. 

[mjmooney]

46 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yes,  as in if the moderators are alerted to something you will make a decision on if that was a breach of the forums guidelines or not. If someone posts something, another reader alerts you to it and you deem it ok. That's situation I'm referring to.

It's kind of why I started the thread. Where does bawdy humour end and offensiveness begin? There's nothing intrinsically wrong with jokes about sex - Shakespeare and Chaucer are full of them (and so is MumsNet). With racism, I think 99% of posters would agree on the sort of language that would justify a report to the mods. With sexism, it's pretty clear from this thread alone that the definitions are far less clear. 

It would feel far more like being a humourless snitch to report every instance of 'what a rack', 'arse and mouth', 'DHUTWU', etc. to the mods and put them on the spot to make those decisions. Why is that, I wonder? Does that sort of comment offend me? Well, yeah, a bit - if only in that I find it all a bit puerile. But would it offend potential female VTers, possibly enough to drive them away? I suspect it might. Do we care about that? I think maybe we should. 

Thanks for all the responses to this thread, btw[*] I wasn't at all sure whether to start it. 

[*] Even @rjw63's. 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by mjmooney

[CVByrne]

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

It's kind of why I started the thread. Where does bawdy humour end and offensiveness begin? There's nothing intrinsically wrong with jokes about sex - Shakespeare and Chaucer are full of them (and so is MumsNet). With racism, I think 99% of posters would agree on the sort of language that would justify a report to the mods. With sexism, it's pretty clear from this thread alone that the definitions are far less clear. 

It would feel far more like being a humourless snitch to report every instance of 'what a rack', 'arse and mouth', 'DHUTWU', etc. to the mods and put them on the spot to make those decisions. Why is that, I wonder? Does that sort of comment offend me? Well, yeah, a bit - if only in that I find it all a bit puerile. But would it offend potential female VTers, possibly enough to drive them away? I suspect it might. Do we care about that? I think maybe we should. 

Thanks for all the responses to this thread, btw. I wasn't at all sure whether to start it. 

It's a good question. I don't even know what threads people post that kind of comments tbh, (they're probably ones I don't visit). I personally think it's puerile laddish and I personally don't engage in it or any commenting of womens appearance on VT. 

As it's not really visible to me in reading the forum, or I just skip the posts I don't really have a view on what should be acceptable. 

[VILLAMARV]

35 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I totally agree, there is legally a definition. Though we long moved past legally to what people morally view as something. So legally sexist to personally offensive. The former is defined for a society the latter is down to every individual to determine what they feel is offensive to themselves. 

How so? And to what end though? I'm not sure I follow the point you're making.

 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said:

I seem to remember the inbetweeners being the most voted for comedy of VT's best british tv comedies thread fwiw.

I think the point I was trying to make is that offending people (be it through comedy or whatever) is totally fine, but it's used in conversations like this in place of discrimination. 'People being offended by XYZ are the problem' yadda yadda yadda. Of course 10 years ago or so a campaign of protest affected change with the repeal of section5 of the Public Order Act - where the word insulting was removed from the legislature. It's not an attack on you Dem or anyone else who has said it in this thread - and 10 years ago it was a relevant argument. But one that was won (because of dissent). Using it propogates a distracting rhetoric around the culture war imho.

Someone being offended by Sam Smith's belly is ok. Someone else being offended by protestors is also ok. People being offended by racism or sexism is not - but not because of the offense bit - but because of the discrimination or prejudice bit.

I missed that thread about inbetweeners tbh mate but great to see. But there are elements of sexism in it but you take it for what it is comedy. I think simon bird even said he wouldn't get away with half that stuff with todays audience 

I agree with your last paragraph well saod

[Stevo985]

12 hours ago, bobzy said:

Oh, to be honest I think it’s the other way round. No-one here is really offended by much, it’s a very tolerant place… but you seemingly are quite offended/maybe intolerant?  Whether that’s about what Sam Smith wears, or people not talking about “pulling birds” or whatever it may be; I’d say that you’re probably one of the most sensitive people on here and often sign off with quite huffy things (like the above - “an at that, I’m out”).

But kudos for having the sensitive conversations with the board, it’s always good to hear different views*.
 

 

 

* - even if they’re wrong  

 

Nail on the head. 

[Mark Albrighton]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

I agree. But if you offended easy you ahouldnt watch many comedies from the 90s as must of them were offensive hence why they were successful 

For example No one is going to tell me inbetweeners although offensive was not hilarious 

 

Which 90’s comedies are you referring to?

The inbetweeners got away with a lot of stuff because the characters were hopeless 16 years old virgins.

Jay can be OTT vulgar because really he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. That’s a central comedic element of the character.

You make the characters 25-30 years old, that innocence has gone and the relentless “clunge” talk wouldn’t work.

I’m also not sure about the suggestion you can’t get away with things now like you could in the 90’s (inbetweeners being a late 00’s show). You ever seen Fleabag? I think it’s far stronger in terms of coarseness (the first episode literally begins with the lead character questioning how big her anus is). Something like Catastrophe hardly pulls its punches either.

[mjmooney]

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Jay can be OTT vulgar because really he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. That’s a central comedic element of the character.

Exactly like the Alf Garnett character in "Till Death". Of course, some viewers entirely missed the satire, and agreed with him. 

[mjmooney]

4 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

You ever seen Fleabag? I think it’s far stronger 

It's comedy written by a woman, with a female lead. In the same way that black characters in films can use the 'n' word. 

People who point to this as hypocrisy or double standards totally fail to grasp the difference. 

 

[VILLAMARV]

19 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

well saod

thonks

[Mark Albrighton]

18 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

It's comedy written by a woman, with a female lead. In the same way that black characters in films can use the 'n' word. 

People who point to this as hypocrisy or double standards totally fail to grasp the difference. 

 

Exactly.

Just so I’m clear, my point was to counter the suggestion that you can’t get away with crude humour like you used to, when in reality one of the most critically acclaimed comedies of recent times had a not insignificant amount of lewd comedy.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Mark Albrighton

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Exactly.

Just so I’m clear, my point was to counter the suggestion that you can’t get away with crude humour like you used to, when in reality one of the most critically acclaimed comedies of recent times had a not insignificant amount of lewd comedy.

Like i said in my post if even the actor is saying you cant get away with it now then whats that saying? I havent watched it in a while im sure i can find references where people would get offended at but id find hilarious 

[Mark Albrighton]

21 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Like i said in my post if even the actor is saying you cant get away with it now then whats that saying? I havent watched it in a while im sure i can find references where people would get offended at but id find hilarious 

That social attitudes and as a result, comedy changes?

Which has always been the case. It’s not like it suddenly changed in 2010 or whenever. It evolves. 

As a quick example going back years, in the 60’s you have Steptoe & Son, one of the most influential comedies ever. There’s fair amount of racism (use of a word that sounds like “wig”) and a bit of homophobia thrown in for good measure.

By the 70’s, you have Porridge, another revered sitcom. There’s a black character and a gay character. There are jokes made about one being black and one being gay which wouldn’t happen now, but the characters are accepted by those around them as equals. 

Things evolved (to an extent) during the time between the two shows. As they continue to do so now.

Incidentally, I read what Simon Bird had to say about how the inbetweeners wouldn’t be made the way it was today. He does not comes across like he believes that’s a bad thing. In fact he seems to think it was somewhat outdated when it was first aired.