main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Sexism policy

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Ender Sai, Nov 3, 2014.

  1. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But E_S, honestly, how could you not include such protections as part of overall policy? Otherwise, you get into the slippery slope of "hate speech" simply being a matter of speech that one disagrees with. Even if that's not true, the perception would apply.

    If we're examining something like the usage of "sweetheart" in the sense that it's chauvinist and rude, which it is, it can easily be inserted under what flaming and/or baiting is, with just an updated outlook on it. But you can't literally potentially ban someone for using "sweetheart," but then in the same thread, someone else posts "You stupid simpleton, your god is dead, and you're delusional for believing in an imaginary power.." and it's allowed to stand as merely a commentary on religion. And we're using religion as only an example, there are other such protections that would all apply-such as LAJ including a lack of religion, which is just as valid. Any such policy such as this will give trade offs with open communication vs protections of classes.

    My summary would be that any time someone uses someone's personal characteristics to attack them, it should probably be a violation of the TOS.
     
    sarlaccsaurs-rex likes this.
  2. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    The problem I see with a general hate speech rule (that goes beyond banning slurs and gendered language) is that it would be largely ineffective in the JCC. I can't think of many examples of posts that were inarguably hateful. For example, it's really easy to pass off religious hatred as simple criticism and is sometimes done with one Abrahamic religion in particular. I guess banning hate speech would be helpful against bigoted comments about casting in the ST or something, but I'm pretty sure those morons get banned anyway.
     
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Well, because as I said before, I am conscious that every time issues of gender discrimination is brought up, men feel the need to manage their guilt and discomfort by trying to attach other points of interest to the topic. Since that's happening here, I feel vindicated and not remotely surprised, but also disappointed. Assume for a second I'm neither an idiot, nor ignorant of how ModSquad works. If we assume this for a second, then any reasonable follow up would have to be that if I wanted to put a broad anti-discrimination agenda before MS and to source user input, I'd have done so. This is not my intent. That can be tackled later and separate to this so it doesn't become something that makes men feel more comfortable with the final product.

    Frankly, if any man is worried about thought police or censorship, then it's possible their views are not as egalitarian as they believe and it's time to start questioning them. I for one anticipate no action taken against me as a result of an official stance against misogyny and if I was censured by a Mod then I would have grounds to examine my earlier confidence and reassess.

    I admit I engaged the topic of religion with Jabba#1 and AFS1983 but I regret the distraction. If a separate discussion about broader discriminatory practice is required it can be spun off from here. I would like to keep the focus on sexual discrimination and gender inequality; not other topics with threaten men and the status quo slightly less.
     
  4. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But E_S, you know your personality, and I don't mean this in a direct dig, but it's not that "men" need to manage their guilt or discomfort here, it's that when you're debating policy that has the potential to affect everyone, you have to look at the broad picture. Ok, so, maybe instances like "sweetheart" escaped scrutiny because they weren't looked at in the true misogynist sense that they were even flames/baits in the first place. So, you address that and update expectations with regard to them. Done and done. You don't have to ignore every other example or instance of anything else to remain focused on a single aspect. Jabba mentioned this when he pointed out the difference between gender based hate speech and people on a message board probably not being the most progressive they can be.

    Ok, yes, someone who threatens someone here because they recommended a strong female character for the Captain Marvel movie should be banned. That's hate speech. But someone else who thinks that Adrianne Palicki looks smashing in her Mockingbird outfit isn't nearly on the same plane of existence. You seem to be treating both in the same manner under the banner of chauvinistic violations.

    It's like what Guy just posted about. There are difficulties with enforcement when it comes to this, but these difficulties are all related by policy. It doesn't make sense to separate one out in isolation because of a focus, while ignoring the fact that others may feel just as strongly about related issues.
     
  5. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    If you take away that I think that the Palicki comments are the same, then I've failed to communicate my piece. Since I pretty clearly am talking about instances that relate purely to objectification, like the "Hot Famous People" thread or instances where someone might post a gif that's intended to sexualise a women in the "Gifs" thread, like if they had the one of Michelle Jenneke doing her warmup routine that was doing the rounds last year.

    Right now, we have no effective stance on, or ability to deal with, misogyny on the boards. Right now, the internet is still a haven for misogynist commentary and whilst the JC is not a 'haven' more could be done to articulate that.

    Right now, we don't have people getting away with racism or homophobia. We do have people getting away with sexism, widely, as evidenced by comments from anakinfansince1983.

    As I've said a few times now, and you can read SLG's "So Let's Talk About Sexism" thread as a precursor to the current JC Misogyny thread - every time issues with how women are treated are raised, men coopt the discussion. So I'm sorry, I'm not interested in this topic including other areas where discriminatory actions or speech may occur. However, should you want to leverage off the work done here in another Comms thread, you have my blessing.

    Since I was clearly confining the discussion to sexism I ask that we limit our commentary and suggestions to gender equality and not worry about other topics just yet. Or at least, not in this thread.
     
  6. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Five Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    This. And the user base is generally pretty good about calling out this sort of behavior. Someone who is concerned about how he sounds and is not aware of it, will just say something along the lines of 'Oops, my bad' and not do it again.

    It's the repetition of the same accompanied by outcries of censorship and the "PC police" that reveal true intent.

    That said...

    I understand this, which is why I thought that it would probably be difficult or impossible to moderate.

    Maybe broadening baiting to include gender-based condescension could be an option?

    Exactly, which is why I always wonder what those who use the "PC police" nomenclature are defending. The right to be sexist? And why?
     
  7. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    I would be all-in on a zero tolerance policy. But as others have pointed out, how would it be implemented?

    Didn't we look at some of these same implementation issues back after the Sapient affair? I was a member of MS post-Sapient and seem to remember that coming up.

    There's a point at which something ceases to become annoying and turns potentially criminal.

    That's why I would like the zero tolerance so long as the policy is very clear and definitive. This is allowed and this is not.
     
  8. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Well right now you're highlighting the problem with project creep (or I guess mission creep in military speak). I intentionally limited the scope so we could have a framework to work from. If that framework was scalable, happy days.

    The simplest approach should be calling out that "Gender discrimination is considered unacceptable and instances of misogyny, discrimination or objectification will not be tolerated by the Administration. Users will be warned for bad behavior and if it persists, further action will be taken."

    As Iello said, it will be much more hands on a first as mods try to guide users away from unhelpful posts in contravention to the MS' stance. If it persists or they're unrepentant ("I'm not being sexist, it was just a joke, feminists ruin everything, I'm a victim too!") then the Mods can act accordingly.

    If we find something we agree on, we can scale it out to wider examples of hate speech that are less confronting to men.
     
  9. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    E_S just to reiterate, I brought in the definition of hate speech and posited how it might be hammered into the rules because JoinTheSchwarz mentioned hate speech in conjunction with zero tolerance and this topic. Discussing gender discrimination in isolation given what JoinThe Schwarz told us seems inefficient.

    But I also think there's an opportunity here to frame the rule in a proper, comprehensive way, in particular given the mod effort to rewrite the rules. It seems they are obligated at this point to take a comprehensive approach, and we need to be discussing how gendered discourse might fit into that framework.
     
  10. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Sure, I don't doubt that but we both know how this stuff works. The wider the net the harder to reach consensus and the more watered down the end result. It's much easier to start small and ensure a scalable end result than to go wide and dilute everything down. ARE YOU LISTENING, UNITED NATIONS?
     
  11. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Do you think we don't have a consensus on hate speech being a ban worthy offense?
     
  12. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    I'm not saying we don't. I'm asking that we focus on misogyny here - which I accept is threatening to many men - and roll that out first. If there's scope to scale it to all hate speech, or focus on race or religion next, happiest of happy days.

    If not, then things can be tweaked.

    Again, though. Men. Wanting to talk about other stuff...
     
  13. Zapdos

    Zapdos Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2013
    it's not that there aren't other problem areas that needs to be adressed too, but why do we have to talk about them in this particular thread. i don't want this potential new sexism policy to be overshadowed and turn out vague and unclear because we want to cover too much at the same time.
     
  14. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    If all standard definitions of hate speech include gender discrimination, then it seems to me that deciding whether rules about gender discrimination could be framed most succinctly and efficiently as part of an overall anti-discrimination policy seems entirely on point. Is this really your strategy for managing this discussion, Ender? - snidely hinting that a desire to address hate speech is due to gender bias?
     
  15. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Suddenly, I feel like a peace advocate at the convention of 1898.
     
  16. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    This. I actually have a lot of experience writing policy. So whilst I appreciate the concern that I might have just not considered the wider application of a broad anti-discriminatory practice, I want to make assurances that I didn't and the limited scope of this thread was, and still in, deliberate.

    As I have said, oh boy, lots of times if people are concerned about topics that are less threatening to middle class white male privilege also discriminatory and not adequately covered by the existing rules framework, they are welcome to spin the discussion off to another thread. But as the opening post made abundantly clear this topic is to discuss the gaps in Board policy on sexism.
     
  17. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Yes. If we can limit it to very specific and targeted areas, it could be successful. It will be difficult and complex as-is to craft a workable policy on sexism, let alone bringing in anti-discrimination.

    Focused and clear goals relating to sexism is what we should develop. They must be limited to have any real power and effectiveness.
     
  18. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Ender, I see you're determined to pursue that strategy! The discussion, also gleaned from the opening post, is also about how best to implement a gender discrimination policy into the rules.
     
  19. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    Jabba I actively participate in discussions on feminism outside these boards, and have a number of feminist friends. I cannot think of an example where a discussion of discrimination against women has not been invaded by men who either seek to

    a) Suggest discrimination happens to all walks of life and we shouldn't just focus on women
    or
    b) claim men are victims too.

    Right now, if you are homophobic or you are racist, you can expect that a moderator will act. If you are misogynistic you cannot expect that. That is representative of a broad social trend and frankly, unjust.

    I raised the point and a mod conceded that there's no appropriate enforcement mechanism for it; moreover, one mod noted he would have edited out someone saying "boy" in a sentence but not "darling" despite them both being attempts to other and disempower someone on arbitrary grounds.

    I cannot disregard my experience with the actions of men to dilute discussions about the severity of discrimination towards women, and that I see here people eagerly want to talk about any discrimination but gender, or to find carve outs to empower them to still discuss a women on aesthetic merit, reinforces my suspicion. Note: I don't think it's intentional, but it happens regardless.

    I have made it abundantly clear numerous times that the scope should be limited to sexism. I have not stuttered. I have not used language with is unclear or ambigious. I am interested in discussing misogyny only. It is not fair nor right that women are not afforded the same basic rights and protections here that minorities get. I mean, I almost said "other minorities" but there are more women than men globally - which illustrates just how messed up society is on the topic of gender!

    If a women can be disempowered in ways that ethnic minorities or GLBTI posters can't, we have a problem. That's the problem I want to address. How many times do I have to tell the white middle class males of the JC that we're talking about misogyny and any other concerns they have which ironically weren't raised until someone pointed out that the boards have a gap when it comes to managing sexism (pure coincidence I am sure) should be raised in another thread? I can go back and count them to see how many times I've said it to date, if that will help give the total number of times I must say it for it to sink in.
     
  20. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    This thread has made it clear that gender bias in posting is a real issue that affects and causes distress to actual members, and I care about that. I don't want to minimize that at all. Given that we all agree (at least I hope), the discussion really should turn to implementing it in the rules. You really need to get your head out of the problem of whether or not any male is trying to minimize gender discrimination and turn it to the problem of framing the rules in the right way to efficiently address this problem, because that was what your opening post was about.

    In my personal opinion, an anti hate speech rule is a NECESSARY component of that, but also probably not sufficient, because we have that gap between actual hate speech and less directly antagonistic gendered speech that minimizes/objectifies women. So we probably need a second rule framed to address that particular problem.
     
  21. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    I would, if the discussion didn't have scope creep. It does, and coincidentally at the hands of men wanting to find safer topics to discuss.

    Taking your feedback here on board though, as an approach, how do people feel about this:

    Terms of Service - Gives effect that the Rules of the JC are to be followed by all posters; "Users agree to be bound by these terms of service and the Rules of the JC; and by any future amendments to either"

    (Note: I understand that the TOS is being updated now so I can't account for what that will look like. It may be the above is redundant)

    Rules of the JC - Amended to include the line that "Gender discrimination is considered unacceptable and instances of misogyny, discrimination or objectification will not be tolerated by the Administration. Users will be warned for bad behavior and if it persists, further action will be taken."

    Next steps - Mods agree to review the above in a PIR in six months time. This may be in the ModSquad or in a Focus Group (acting as intended like an Advisory Council, for us oldbies). Any tweaks, suggestions or changes can be covered and if it's deemed to be effective and successful, the policy can be scaled out to cover discriminatory practice in a much broader context.




    Thoughts?
     
  22. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Five Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    LOVE the amendment to the "rules of the JC".
     
  23. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    I agree. Start out with soft power. Move to bans later. Taking any action might preempt most problems.
     
  24. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Alternatively:

    Jedi Council Forums Principles of Behavior


    2) Users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which is respectful to themselves and fellow users at all times.

    Posting Rules and Regulations

    1. The Jedi Council does not permit posts that attack or demean a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
     
    Barriss_Coffee likes this.
  25. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    I would think that more appropriate as the outcome from the PIR than the first step Jabba#1.