Discussion in 'Communications' started by Ender Sai, Nov 3, 2014.
Just saving time since it's the best way to go about it, but the mods know that.
I agree with Jabba. (and the other Jabba about the hilarity of some people in here trying to champion this topic while being some of the worst offenders in the JCC).
There is no reason to only speak about a sexism policy. Any kind of intolerance for the reasons already stated in this thread is wrong and it is quite disappointing to see that some women in this thread think that sexism against women is more important to discuss first and push aside the other forms of intolerance going on in this forum. It is incredibly selfish to say that we can only discuss sexism right now. Discussing all of the issues is not going to overshadow the sexism policy. That's a ridiculous thought. Hate speech against others bothers me more than hate speech directed at myself. If we're working towards a better atmosphere here then we have to address more than just the sexist comments.
I am also concerned about how far we're willing to take this. If I post a picture of myself in the post a pic thread, is it now sexist for a guy to click like? What if it is a guy who has a history of harassing people on here? Will that be considered unwanted attention? I haven't posted many pictures of myself lately and posted one on facebook the other day receiving quite a bit of attention from both sexes of my friends talking about how amazing I looked. If I post a photo here, is that going to no longer be allowed? Can Brian not comment about my weight loss or call me beautiful? Where is the line going to be? I want to know because even though I'm a women I frequently comment about male actors and flirt with people on the forum and I believe the policy should go both ways.
I'd also say that there are some people I'd be totally fine with calling me 'sweetheart' or 'darling' in a discussion so the mods are going to be modding intent now and that really bothers me. We've never been allowed to mod intent.
Also I find it hilarious that the JCC doesn't have a female mod and agree with Jello that they need one. So I'm supposed to sit here and expect an all male mod staff to be able to pick this stuff out and enforce it? No offense but it is quite wrong to not have a female mod in the JCC or Lit because it isn't representative of the people that post there and frankly in and of itself is a little demeaning for women that there isn't a female on these boards able to moderate those forums. It either says something about MS that they're unwilling to vote a female user into that role or it says something about the userbase that females are no longer willing to mod in the JCC. Haven't been in MS for a bit so I'm not sure why the last couple of females stepped down but I know harassment of some were reasons in the past. I know when I had a harassment complaint to make it was a female mod I wanted to talk to about it despite being close to several of the male mods of the JCC I think I'd still want to talk to another female about it.
The thread is specifically about sexism. I'm not opposed to discussing other forms of intolerance but I'm not sure why they can't be in their own thread. The issue with all forms of intolerance being in the same thread is the "Hey look over there!" syndrome. Sexism isn't as bad as this -ism.
Let's just discuss all the -isms that are bad, and give each their due, in separate places.
I think moderating "likes" is taking it way too far, and there is nothing wrong with complimenting someone. It's the attention after being told that it's unwanted that's the problem.
And I don't know that the selfie thread has ever been a problem, other than when everyone assumes that some new poster is ApolloSmileDude, but that has nothing to do with this thread.
I agree, which is why I mentioned that a condescending tone and persistent sexist posting is far more bothersome than those particular words.
I honestly have not noticed that there isn't a female mod there.
I have had no issues talking to an understanding male mod when I had an issue with sexism but I understand that others might feel differently.
But this isn't really a thread about discussing sexism. We all know it happens in the JC. This is a thread about crafting and enforcing a set of rules to get rid of it, or to do our best to minimize it, or at least that's what the OP is about.
And the optimal/most efficient way to do that is to create and enforce a rule set about discrimination that encompasses gender-based problems.
Yes, with due respect Horsey it seems like a large part of your opinion was formed by reading a handful of posts to date. Mostly because objections you raised have been specifically answered and you do not acknowledge those answers as having been given?
Can you hand on heart tell me you really think we dismissed all hate speech out of hand? Because we didn't. We emphatically said that right now, there's more protections in place to prevent other forms of discrimination occurring. The scope of this thread is dealing with sexism. Other points can be addressed in separate threads to avoid the risk of the issue of equality for women being diluted or focus being lost.
I said all these points; others have agreed. And I just don't see how I could have been any clearer.
Yeah I think its incredibly inefficient to discuss all of these -isms separately because they all fall under the same umbrella of an intolerance or hatred for something out of someone's control. It's the same issue.
Also I read the entire thread. Thanks for the reminder that I should though. In case I hadn't. I still feel like my post can stand and be relevant. Also I'm going to point out the first response to my post is someone saying that those other discussions should happen in another thread. So back off, Ender.
I think the jcc mods are great, for the most part. I think all of them are capable, intelligent, and sensitive enough to recognize sexism when they see it. I don't think we need a token female mod, and I don't think the absence of a female jcc mod is sexism--it just happened that way this time. We've had several female mods in the past, and I'm sure we will in the future. I don't think the fact that there is not currently a female mod is cause for alarm.
In a way, yes. But if the issues are all discussed in the same place, how do we avoid the "Hey look over there!" or the "your -ism isn't as bad as my -ism" phenomenon, which has already been brought up in this thread with the "hey what about religion?" comments.
It's not efficient to discuss the issues in the same place with the inevitable comparisons that will happen.
So, you post a picture and If someone likes it, I fail to see how it could be reasonably proven to be a genuine "I objectively think it's a nice picture of you" vs "what a HOPA, I'd hit it". So any reasonableness test would put your concern firmly to bed. Even if it's a known misogynist liking it; you cannot divine intent. If they commented in an inappropriate way, it would be deemed harassment and actionable.
Similarly, "If I post a picture here, is that going to no longer be allowed"? I can't think of a single instance where this is a logical or reasonable response to any point I've raised. I suggested that objectification of women should be stopped. Unless you are objectifying yourself, how in any logical sense could that be disallowed? Let's be totally honest for a moment - the reason people share photos in that JC thread is for the positive feedback. Be it "you look beautiful/handsome/oh look, it's Mar and Everton being a couple again" they want affirmation for the image and its positive qualities. It's not devaluing anyone as a slab of meat (except Obiwan JR).
The intent is to basically ensure you're not only thought as an object, that's all. I don't know where this concern about not being able to seek affirmation from friends on the JC came from - I'm a little shocked by it, frankly.
There's no "hey, look over there" going on... this came from the first few posts in the thread. We've been discussing other 'isms' from the very beginning.
The opening post framed this thread as a discussion of how best to frame the rules and enforce them. The best way to frame the rules is in the context of a larger anti-discrimination policy. The best way to enforce them may be to encourage the mods to pay special attention to gender issues for a while. I don't disagree with that at all.
The "hey look over there!" posts came after that.
And other than cluttering the first page of Comms, why shouldn't differing isms be given their own attention?
Example: sexism is not the same as homophobia, even if we can (rightfully) say that bigotry is bigotry, and I do think the two are linked to some extent.
gender issues in the JC completely deserve their own thread. This thread is about how to best frame and enforce the rules of the JC to alleviate the problems caused by those issues.
Sounds like it would just convolute the process, not help things along. Unless you're suggesting that being sexist should garner some kind of different penalty to being racist?
I'm not, but there was discussion earlier regarding what "being sexist" looks like and suggestion that a policy needed specifics.
It would be nice if "don't be an ***hole" could just be a universally understood policy, but specifics will look different for each -ism.
harpua , sure, if there is just going to be a general punishment for any instance of "being a bigot," but this thread began from the premise that sexism is already moderated differently.
I don't disagree with this in theory; in fact it's very sound. However, I'd still suggest that the inherent risk is that the wider net requires firmer definitions on non-arbitrary distinctions, especially since we've probably (I'm putting my hand up here in case people think I'm not) been too lax about how some of those areas are treated (religion, duh).
If we can limit scope to discrimination for arbitrary fields first - race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender - and then scope out the non-arbitrary such as religion I think it would serve our purposes better. It wouldn't delay implementation of an anti-sexism stance whilst consensus is being sought. It wouldn't leave a segment of the JC users totally without protections as the lack of rules for prohibiting misogyny currently do. And it would give us time to implement something for those areas of choice that's not rush but rather fully fleshed out.
As a compromise, how's that sound?
So you think a male mod can't equally enforce the policies of the JC? Should we apply the same to racism and ethnic slurs? If not, why not?
I agree that sexism is moderated differently, and that's a problem. So, I think it will be helpful to look at intolerance as a whole, decide where sexism fits in, and adjust policy accordingly.
I don't think it's cause for alarm, nor due to a conspiracy (esp. considering we've def. had our share of female mods in the past, including several of our most prominent mods). I do think though that it would be helpful to have one though, especially in dealing with issues that the current team -- despite our best efforts to be fair and all that -- might miss or see differently.
The Community team has been into how we moderate the boards going forward, and one of the things we were considering is expanding the mod team because it looks like sometimes incidents are going under the radar. Since we're doing that anyway, there's good timing to look into female candidates.
We don't want anything like a token female mod. We're still looking at our main criteria: we want someone the community respects, someone we can trust to work with us as a team, and someone who has the coverage we need. Whoever fits will be a candidate, whether male or female. But might as well try and see if we can get that additional female perspective too.
works for me, with the caveat if the rules do end up being based around zero tolerance for discrimination (e.g. the definition of hate speech) that all standards I know of include discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation or belief.
Interesting. I actually ran my post past another person before posting it to make sure I wasn't way off base and was told it was a good post and brought up a different perspective that needed to be said. So really I don't care that you're shocked by this. Everyone should be allowed to say their opinion on a policy change and that's what I did.
I don't want to see things go down the slope like the concerns I brought up. Precisely because of what you say, people do want that affirmation when they post images there. However, there already exists certain restrictions on a few users on not being allowed to comment on certain people's posts because of harassment complaints. So there already exists instances like the one I'm concerned about becoming a larger problem as we take this sexism issue to a new level.
I'm not trying to respond to every single post. I think the mods would benefit from hearing from everyone's point of view. This isn't a debate, so don't shout out people who disagree.
I think quite a few of the discussions already going on in the JCC have addressed this issue already. There are so many instances of males (including some of the mods) posting "Wow I didn't even think of that as being offensive" lately.
And I think this is where things like the Report function being relied upon, or mods consulting for consensus in MS before acting, might be a stop-gap benefit?
Also, ahem: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/sexism-policy.50024165/page-2#post-51920429
Yep, agreed, subject to that being fleshed out a bit and using the Facebook guidelines you quoted earlier as a framework. Let's get some easy wins under our belt and agree on a framework for a wider hate speech policy that users and MS can broadly get behind.
EDIT: @s65horsey, who is shouting? I'm glad you don't care about my reaction, but if you'll allow me to explain I'm shocked because I thought as both female and mod, you would probably be on board with this. I expected someone to make the case that it should be a two way street because men can be objectified too.. but from a man doing the usual MRA/stalling tactic stuff men do in feminist discussions. Not you.
You're neither shouted out, nor unwelcome here. Why on earth would you be?! You're looking for hostility that just does not exist and acting like I'm having a go at you. I'm not.
But that's why we're here. Not only to raise awareness, but also to note that as it stands the current rules do not empower mods to treat instances of sexism or misogyny as an enforceable action. Aside from Mr44 fretting about being able to say someone looked attractive, the discussion was never framed in points about not being able to share your own photos or say a male actor looked hot. It just wasn't, and slippery slope arguments are considered intellectually lazy which is why we didn't make them.
At no point could someone say "Gosh, horsey, old chum... have to take your picture down. Too many people have said you're looking attractive as a result of your weight loss. It's bordering on titillating. Don't want to provoke a thought crime, do we now?" (I don't know why the Mod sounds like Stephen Fry, but they do). No point. What they could do though is offer you recourse to complain if someone takes the positive affirmation and recognition that your hard work and discipline has had a positive effect and diminish that by saying "Would tap that."
The reason it's never come up is that I think most people, excepting Mr44, acknowledge that it's just not on the cards. If anything, it encourages you to share those photos because you know there's a rules-based framework to punish anyone who responds with inappropriate sexist commentary.
I've not seen the photos you're referring to, horsey, but I know a few friends who have been proud of themselves for losing weight and how it makes them look; and I know it helps them to hear people acknowledge that. At no point should any person on these forums take that away from you. And at no point should a person be allowed to make judgements about you based exclusively on how you look and with little to no repercussions for this act.
I genuinely don't want you to think you're being shouted at, ignored, disregarded, shut out, or otherwise undermined. Your viewpoint is valued; I am offering assurances that we are not seeking to implement anything that would change your posting habits.
The reason it doesn't occur to them is not because they're not female. It's because there's not tightly-focused prescribed rules laid out. The policy is vague. It's an open road. You need to give them a roadmap with traffic signals and lane markers. Then they will enforce it effectively. You give them an open road and they will drive all over it.