# attitudes towards women on this forum



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

A recent thread here, and it's comments by a certain poster, I think needs to be highlighted.
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/83651-religious-thread-161.html

I appreciate that often self moderation is a good thing, but I believe, there needs to be a line. When someone posts such vile comments that show such a disregard for women, and attitudes often shown by those who have physically assaulted women, that line should be drawn in my opinion. I don't think it matters whether it's face to face, or an online forum. I believe it should be confronted, at all times.

I did so, and I won't apologize for it. I was attacked by a couple members for doing so (and likely reported for standing up to this), and I have to say I'm rather dismayed by that. I would have thought there would have been a common stance on this. I guess not.

For that reason, I'm outta here. Unless it;s shown this isn't tolerated here. I don't know of one forum that would. It's been a slice to get to know a few of you, some of you I know personally and from other places so we'll still get to chat.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Perhaps the point of the religious thread was an unmoderated exchange of ideas, no matter how bigoted, misogynistic or ignorant.

Regardless, I agree that those types of comments have no place here.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I just stumbled over the latest "hornet's nest" myself and though I can't say I'm in agreement with that fellow's attitudes toward "the wife and kids," it's his right to spout off and declaim on the supposed emasculation of men. Have at it, I say! Best such attitudes be exposed. Nor are we all supposed to agree with one another on this stuff. And hey - it's the religion thread - you expected maybe peaches and cream?

Nor do I see, Groove, how promising to leave the forum would solve anything.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max, it isn't that it was posted there. I get your point, and understand.

It's the reaction to my calling the poster either disturbed, or a troll. I assumed the former. I believe this sort of attitude should be confronted. You cannot allow this sort of thing to be posted, and then attack people for saying that they think this is a disturbed person.

I'm a little dismayed that anyone would defend this person. I take the issue seriously.

If I'm in error, certainly I'm willing to admit to it. But this one has touched my life personally, and I have seen far too much of this to stand by while people defend it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I've been reading that thread and not replying... there's a lot being said that makes me uncomfortable. Haven't replied, as I'm not a big fan of arguing with someone who is likely to immediately dismiss me as 'oh, just some emasculator'.

I don't agree, at all, with what the current pot-stirrer is saying. But he's not to the first to espouse this view, even in this forum or in others, so I wonder to myself why it makes me so uncomfortable seeing it here? And I think a lot of that is in the language he uses to express this opinion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Look Groove, those who defend that person probably believe in the many of same things he does. It's not a new belief, after all. It's as old as the hills. But simply denouncing it (i.e., women ought to know their place, men are naturally in charge) won't make it go away. It just won't. Better to shine a light on it. Sweeping it under the carpet, pretending it won't exist, saying the fellow has no right to speak out on topics of the day - how is that fair or democratic?

Sure, there are hate speech provisions. But it's a real gauntlet and it's full of greys. When does your right not to be outraged trump another's right to share with us his view of women?

It's the internet, man. Stuff happens. You're not going to find another forum where the same divisions don't regularly come to the fore. Leaving this particular one won't do anything to change things for the better.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

You're right Max. I'm just incredulous at anyone who would defend it. Thanks for your voice of reason.

And Sonal I am not surprised it makes you feel uncomfortable. Anyone from any group where there is a history of serious violence being committed against would. I realize I may sound a little upset here, but I have always believed it is crucial for men to stand up to this, IRL, or online. Everywhere. It wasn't like I went crazy on the guy and called him all the things I would have liked to, (I didn't because I -do- respect the forum...) but the reaction of a few was disappointing to me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since I was one who disagreed with groove's use of the terms 'disturbed' and 'troll', I wish to be clear on why I hold that opinion. While I do not in any way agree with the poster's views on women (and challenged him on his opinion in that thread), I still believe one should take part in a discussion without name calling. The term 'troll' is a favourite comeback and used by gt all too frequently when he doesn't agree with a poster IMHO. As for his use of the term 'disturbed' to describe that poster, that is in my mind, not only unnecessary, but over the top and intended as an extreme insult. While I have no use for that man's views, I have little more for such name calling. Other than those two words, I agree with gt's position entirely.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

SINC said:


> Since I was one who disagreed with groove's use of the terms 'disturbed' and 'troll', I wish to be clear on why I hold that opinion. While I do not in any way agree with the poster's views on women (and challenged him on his opinion in that thread), I still believe one should take part in a discussion without name calling. The term 'troll' is a favourite comeback and used by gt all too frequently when he doesn't agree with a poster IMHO. As for his use of the term 'disturbed' to describe that poster, that is in my mind, not only unnecessary, but over the top and intended as an extreme insult. *While I have no use for that man's views, I have even less for such name calling.* Other than those two words, I agree with gt's position entirely.


I have less time for that man's views than name calling. You rank calling someone a troll or disturbed a worse offence than his views on women? Come on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Joker Eh said:


> I have less time for that man's views than name calling. You rank calling someone a troll or disturbed a worse offence than his views on women? Come on.


You're right, I edited the post to read:

While I have no use for that man's views, I have little more for such name calling. Other than those two words, I agree with gt's position entirely.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

actually, my use of the term troll was used for a member who has openly admitted to regularly trolling. The last time I checked, I haven't insulted a good member so much that they left.

Yes, the terms disturbed, and possibly troll, were pretty light compared to the comments. A difference of opinion, that's one ting. This, is a whole different ballgame.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

John Clay said:


> Perhaps the point of the religious thread was an unmoderated exchange of ideas, no matter how bigoted, misogynistic or ignorant.
> 
> Regardless, I agree that those types of comments have no place here.


I have no comments or share any opinions on the matter in that thread- But what I will say is, Religion is a sensitive issue which should be a somewhat private matter never spoken in the open unless this site is operated by a church. 
Secondly - based on region and country it is open up to interpretation ( which is a bad and good thing - not everyone will agree on the comments made ); I am surprised that the topic is even allowed. One thing I am glad is that other religions were not brought in to the treatment of women because that would really go bad quickly..[remember wars have been started in the name of religion ].

But if it is going to be an open forum discussion, then as a suggestion to all that are offended by its nature; do not read or post in that thread or it should be locked up to keep the peace.

I for one have never even read through the thread [until now] - for one reason - for it is about religion.. I keep that for Sunday at our place of worship.. which is a good suggestion for all.

You will not be able change any ones views on an internet site.. it should not be attempted as everyone will be angered and frustrated.. plan and simple..

just my 2 cents. [ I hope i have not offended any one by it.. ]


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

He sounds very much like a troll from the right wingnut Christian Organization, Promise Breakers.

The founder was a well known university coach. Interestingly at the same time he was spouting all of his celibacy claptrap, the teams star quarterback knocked up his high school aged daughter.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Creating a separate thread for this is gutless. Debate the man, but don't run away and try to wheedle other people into taking your position.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Creating a separate thread for this is gutless. Debate the man, but don't run away and try to wheedle other people into taking your position.


Gutless? It brought the contents of the thread to an audience that would have otherwise avoided that thread like the plague.

I'm glad a new thread was created - that thread shows some people's true colors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, gutless. There's no reason to start a new thread every time some members get their panties in a knot over something they disagree with. So what if some people would have avoided the other thread?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Creating a separate thread for this is gutless. Debate the man, but don't run away and try to wheedle other people into taking your position.


Pointless attempt at diversion, since he is not banned from defending himself here. Rather it is simply placing a diverting side issue into its own thread.

I still have my money on Promise Breakers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It isn't a side issue. it is an attempt to sidestep the person whom the OP is unwilling to confront at this time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

John Clay said:


> Gutless? It brought the contents of the thread to an audience that would have otherwise avoided that thread like the plague.
> 
> I'm glad a new thread was created - that thread shows some people's true colors.


exactly why I did. I thought it was a bigger issue, and should be put where others who may not visit the religious thread, can see it. It's beyond the topic of religion. My christian friends aren't misogynist, so, it's the person, not the religious beliefs.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

I for one am one of the ones who avoided ( and will continue to avoid ) the religious thread like the plague. I have no interest in debating religion. I know and am comfortable with what I believe but I don't really care if you do too. I strongly suspect I'm a part of the silent majority on this one.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I was too busy living a fulfilling life.

But it was interesting to see the Mayor's reaction. 

Plenty of emotions.

Interesting.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Yes, gutless. There's no reason to start a new thread every time some members get their panties in a knot over something they disagree with. So what if some people would have avoided the other thread?


Yet you joined this thread all the same, thereby putting your stamp of approval on it, however unwittingly. Next time why not denounce it from the supposed moral high ground of the original thread?

It's also funny that you should deem Groove gutless. You whose real identity is known to all and sundry. I almost want to use a rolleyes!

Ah, well. Nothing like a good flare-up on a forum to get people acting out.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Paul82 said:


> I for one am one of the ones who avoided ( and will continue to avoid ) the religious thread like the plague. I have no interest in debating religion. I know and am comfortable with what I believe but I don't really care if you do too. I strongly suspect I'm a part of the silent majority on this one.


I have great respect for that. Regardless of wether your beliefs are in any way congruent with mine, I can only judge a person who keeps their beliefs to themselves by their actions.

However, I also respect the person who can articulate their beliefs and enjoys the intellectual exercise of defending them from rational criticisms. I've certainly learned a lot from that sort of thing over the decades, and I still enjoy it. I hoped that this is what the religion thread would evolve into. There have been the occasional sparks of interesting discussion, but so far, not much.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Paul82 said:


> I for one am one of the ones who avoided ( and will continue to avoid ) the religious thread like the plague. I have no interest in debating religion. I know and am comfortable with what I believe but I don't really care if you do too. I strongly suspect I'm a part of the silent majority on this one.


Certainly I demand the right to my own views, which means that I have no right to insist that any one else accept those views, but do have the right to expect those who disagree with me to respect my viewpoint as well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Yet you joined this thread all the same, thereby putting your stamp of approval on it, however unwittingly. Next time why not denounce it from the supposed moral high ground of the original thread?


Because the statement was made here. Apply your peculiar sense of logistics to your own posts.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh, so I'm peculiar now and you're not - and your own brand of logic is unassailable. Got it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Oh, so I'm peculiar now and you're not - and your own brand of logic is unassailable. Got it.


It works for me. Now go and do what works for you.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh good, another magisterial directive from the prisoner! Kewl.

_use your avatar
to shield your frail self, laddie - 
mustn't let things slip._


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

What difference does it make if it's addressed in a separate thread?

It's not like this thread is hiding from all the people involved and that they can't comment here as well.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_the thread cop's upset
order must be maintained, see!
or the sky caves in_


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by Max
> ...


speaks the libby who wishes he stands alone in society without his actions having any effect on others.....sad case of mistaken reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> speaks the libby who wishes he stands alone in society without his actions having any effect on others.....sad case of mistaken reality.


My actions have a positive effect on many. That's what motivates me!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> My actions have a positive effect on many. That's what motivates me!


It's true. You've certainly motivated me to become much more active in supporting the NDP and Green Party. I used to be rather politically apathetic, but your arguments and proclamations have snapped me out of my complacency.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> _the thread cop's upset
> order must be maintained, see!
> or the sky caves in_


_poems on poems on poems
more time on their hands than sense
back to friggin' work_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It's true. You've certainly motivated me to become much more active in supporting the NDP and Green Party. I used to be rather politically apathetic, but your arguments and proclamations have snapped me out of my complacency.


I want to see you devoting a lot of time and money to these parties.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Max said:


> I just stumbled over the latest "hornet's nest" myself and though I can't say I'm in agreement with that fellow's attitudes toward "the wife and kids," it's his right to spout off and declaim on the supposed emasculation of men. Have at it, I say! Best such attitudes be exposed. Nor are we all supposed to agree with one another on this stuff. And hey - it's the religion thread - you expected maybe peaches and cream?
> 
> Nor do I see, Groove, how promising to leave the forum would solve anything.


This pretty much sums it up. 

For the record, I think those held beliefs are women are absolutely repugnant, and should be exposed. They should be exposed with logical arguments attacking the issue, not comments directed to the person with insults. 

For the record, my comment in the thread was purposely directed to the thread in general and meant as a general comment for all participating. 

Perhaps I chose my wording incorrectly, I don't expect anyone to have respect for a person who holds repugnant views on women. And as for civility, members are free to attack those repugnant *points of view* fiercely. 

I'm not simply going to delete or censor a comment for someone saying them, and I'm also not going to permit anyone on any side of the fence of a topic to argue their case by attacking another member. 

Again I will say, to imply or infer that I somehow endorse or find certain repugnant points of view about women acceptable because I allow them to be said... :roll eyes: Give me a break. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe that's fair.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I believe that's fair.


May the verbal abuse and character assassination / assault begin.. The green light was given... LOL [ so much for peace and love, thread lock outs and bans ]
This should be interesting, to read / watch..
Time to go to my chaise and get a good drink with my iPad and see how this one will play its self out. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think I have said that allowing them to 'be said' means you endorse the views. I hope I had made that clear. If not, I have now. It's the reaction.

For the most part, it's a good way of doing things, to fiercely debate the point of view. I can agree with that. However, when something, so incredibly offensive, so unbelievably disgusting is posted, please don't be surprised when someone or a group of regular members react strongly to such a thing. Right or wrong.

There are few things, that I will come out swinging hard on. This happens to be one of them. Max was right, I got too emotionally involved, and was upset at the reaction this morning. I'm sorry. But I will NOT apologize, for attacking the attitudes that I have seen first hand resulting in women being beaten black and blue with, and calling it disturbed. It is.

There is a line. And that one was it. As I said. I may have used the term disturbed (and troll, since I wondered if the person was posting such obviously offensive comments in order to stir the pot, which at one time or another, we have all possibly erroneously labelled posts as troll or spam...) but my reaction in person would have been waaaaay stronger. It's my respect for the forum that I restrained myself. Trust me I would have liked to say far more. I didn't.

I started this thread, mainly to draw attention to the comments, and let it play out. I'm glad I did, and reason prevails.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've gone through life constantly being amazed at how often I end up getting emotional reactions to (what I considered) rational questions or statements. Web forums are no different, but it's still a learning curve for me.

The thing my mother tried to teach all of her children to ask is "Is this productive? Am I part of the solution? (or part of the problem?)."

I always endeavour to be 'part of the solution', even though it might not appear that way at time to others.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I started this thread, mainly to draw attention to the comments, and let it play out. I'm glad I did, and reason prevails.


I don't believe it changed anything.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

It got me to read and respond to the religion thread. So ... depends upon your perspective of 'change'.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's about as good a thread as any in this place. And yes, change is how you define it. Have any of us profoundly changed over our time spent here? I don't think so. We just wear deeper grooves.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> _poems on poems on poems
> more time on their hands than sense
> back to friggin' work_


Not bad!

_rants you deliver:
lightweight words in sad defence
of some odd-duck code_


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Max said:


> It's about as good a thread as any in this place. And yes, change is how you define it. Have any of us profoundly changed over our time spent here? I don't think so. We just wear deeper grooves.


In the 12 years I've been on here, I have. Anytime I changed, it was never because someone insulted me. It was because they had well thought out posts on their opinions that made sense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've changed my opinion on a few matters, but only when I've been relentlessly hammered into submission. Doesn't happen often though.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Again with the hammers ... What is this hammer fixation you seem to have acquired recently?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I've changed my opinion on a few matters, but only when I've been relentlessly hammered into submission. Doesn't happen often though.


Normally you are doing the hammering into submission :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

> I've changed my opinion on a few matters, but only when I've been relentlessly hammered into submission. Doesn't happen often though.


Maxwell's Silver Hammer - YouTube


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That was the best song on Abbey Road! Where's my hammer?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

ehMax said:


> In the 12 years I've been on here, I have. Anytime I changed, it was never because someone insulted me. It was because they had well thought out posts on their opinions that made sense.


I would argue that's more of a small, incremental change. I just don't see a chat room or forum generally forcing a long-term fundamental change in a person's character. But I do believe it can offer valuable lessons in socialization, provided one is willing to study them and learn.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I would argue that's more of a small, incremental change. I just don't see a chat room or forum generally forcing a long-term fundamental change in a person's character. But I do believe it can offer valuable lessons in socialization, provided one is willing to study them and learn.


+1 Agreed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> I would argue that's more of a small, incremental change. I just don't see a chat room or forum generally forcing a long-term fundamental change in a person's character. But I do believe it can offer valuable lessons in socialization, provided one is willing to study them and learn.


absolutely. Even well reasoned arguments fail to change anyone, really.

However, this issue, goes far and well beyond well reasoned arguments. There is simply no excuse for these sorts of attitudes being posted and must be met with full force.

Period.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

I am no scholar, but in the Middle Ages women had more opportunities and liberties than many do today. It was not just the Lords scooping up young women Ladies were scooping up young defenceless men. They had more access to being more self sufficient. Many women were leaders in the middle class. Due mainly to the Black Death, but did not World War 2 open a door for women in this country? The church and the ruling men can be blamed for the advancements being erased. To the point that even Queen Victoria believed in the Damsel in distress. When the fact is the women were pulling their own weight and protecting the house and home.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

In the Middle Ages, it was difficult for women to own property unless they were widowed (and therefore held their late husband's property.) It was also extremely difficult for women to own businesses, to become educated, to enter certain trade guilds, or to get paid what a man would for the same work. Women could not marry without their parents' consent, and could not divorce unless their husbands wanted to. And one could always discredit a woman by accusing her of witchcraft.

So I don't quite see how it was better then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course there's an excuse for these attitudes being posted--it's because some people believe in them. However, meeting them with undisciplined responses and emotional tirades fails miserably.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I expect meeting them with disciplined responses and robotic utterances would likely fail just as miserably. Or, as someone helpfully retorted to me on another website just the other week, "haters gonna hate."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> I expect meeting them with disciplined responses and robotic utterances would likely fail just as miserably. Or, as someone helpfully retorted to me on another website just the other week, "haters gonna hate."


Exactly. As I've said already, I think anyone who thinks that 'reasoned responses' to this issue is the way to deal with attitudes towards women, fail to understand the seriousness of this. It is these very same attitudes that result in the severe and brutal beatings, and murders of women every year in this country. Reasoned responses? Yeah, sure.

I'm guessing that any of those victims would see "reasoned arguments" as a real fail too.

It's time to wake up and grow a pair.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This is not about "growing a pair" or who is being "gutless". Enough of this posturing talk already.

Here's the thing, Groove. It's no good shutting down talk of certain controversial subjects, however outrageous, outmoded or misplaced you may find it. You'll notice the fellow in question didn't gather a whole lot of adherents egging him on, affirming his words. In fact, I think he's kind of isolated himself. Some thoughtful individuals spoke up on the subject, shed a little light. Better for the topic to have come up than to have been buried alive by a prevailing, crippling fear or some twisted sense of proper decorum.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Sonal said:


> In the Middle Ages, it was difficult for women to own property unless they were widowed (and therefore held their late husband's property.) It was also extremely difficult for women to own businesses, to become educated, to enter certain trade guilds, or to get paid what a man would for the same work. Women could not marry without their parents' consent, and could not divorce unless their husbands wanted to. And one could always discredit a woman by accusing her of witchcraft.
> 
> So I don't quite see how it was better then.



I suppose I should have stressed the period after the Black Death more. Sorry, for any confusion.
While I agree that what it turned into (and perhaps I have put to much stock into this program). Things may not have been as bad as you have portrayed. At least not for the entire era. I am adding a link. Take a look you may be surprised.

The Damsel - YouTube

If the program is correct, then for a brief period women were empowered and as I said it did not last. In some ways women lost more ground than before. Or perhaps I just wanted to believe what they are trying say, because I do believe women are equal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> This is not about "growing a pair" or who is being "gutless". Enough of this posturing talk already.
> 
> Here's the thing, Groove. It's no good shutting down talk of certain controversial subjects, however outrageous, outmoded or misplaced you may find it. You'll notice the fellow in question didn't gather a whole lot of adherents egging him on, affirming his words. In fact, I think he's kind of isolated himself. Some thoughtful individuals spoke up on the subject, shed a little light. Better for the topic to have come up than to have been buried alive by a prevailing, crippling fear or some twisted sense of proper decorum.


I think you misunderstand me Max. I'm addressing the notion that reasoned arguments is the way t deal with it. I don't fault anyone for trying, but I reject the notion that is -the- way to address it. Nor do I disagree with you on this:



> Better for the topic to have come up than to have been buried alive by a prevailing, crippling fear or some twisted sense of proper decorum.


I'm not posturing, I'm expressing how serious the attitude is, and the notion that only reasoned arguments work.

I'm sorry if my comments are strong, but I have seen first hand how reasoned arguments work, and the devastating results.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Perhaps we misunderstand each other, then. For me, the irony here is that you threatened to walk away because it seemed you felt the forum should not permit such discussion to take place at all - and I call _that_ a twisted (i.e., false) sense of decorum - or a crippling fear (take your pick).

You may not believe that calm talk will solve anything, and that's fine. But I don't see how getting cartoon macho would solve anything either. And one thing's for sure - threatening to walk away does zip. Actually walking away? The same thing. Zip. In my experience, people usually just shrug and tell themselves, 'well, he's fried anyway. Couldn't cut it, poor fellow.' Or: 'give it time - he'll be back.'


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Perhaps we misunderstand each other, then. For me, the irony here is that you threatened to walk away because it seemed you felt the forum should not permit such discussion to take place at all - and I call _that_ a twisted (i.e., false) sense of decorum - or a crippling fear (take your pick).
> 
> You may not believe that calm talk will solve anything, and that's fine. But I don't see how getting cartoon macho would solve anything either. And one thing's for sure - threatening to walk away does zip. Actually walking away? The same thing. Zip. In my experience, people usually just shrug and tell themselves, 'well, he's fried anyway. Couldn't cut it, poor fellow.' Or: 'give it time - he'll be back.'


Yes, we do. That was in response to what I perceived as allowing such outrageous and offensive comments without allowing the responses. That's fine if you allow these sorts of comments, (most forums don't btw) and I can certainly get behind the policy. But don't be surprised at the responses to said outrageous comments. I've already said I was restrained in my responses (which it seems can't be said for the guy posting the misogynist comments...).

It was not, and I repeat, not because it was allowed to be posted. It seems this, isn't clear.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

OK, I get it now. Whew. See how easy it is to cross wires on teh intertubez?

In any case, without such divisive topics there'd be less illumination in places like this. As it stands, times like this it seems to me the net offers fertile ground for _talking at _more than it does _listening_.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> OK, I get it now. Whew. See how easy it is to cross wires on teh intertubez?
> 
> In any case, without such divisive topics there'd be less illumination in places like this. As it stands, times like this it seems to me the net offers fertile ground for _talking at _more than it does _listening_.


I have always maintained, that this sort of interaction is one of the worst ways of communication. I'm far more comfortable talking in person than with a keyboard.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Yes, we do. That was in response to what I perceived as allowing such outrageous and offensive comments without allowing the responses.


At the time you threatened to bolt, no responses were being prevented. 



groovetube said:


> I did so, and I won't apologize for it. I was attacked by a couple members for doing so (and likely reported for standing up to this), and I have to say I'm rather dismayed by that. I would have thought there would have been a common stance on this. I guess not.
> 
> For that reason, I'm outta here. Unless it;s shown this isn't tolerated here. I don't know of one forum that would.


I call foul on the re-interpretation. Threatening to quit is strictly drama queen stuff. Be careful how you use it in the future, because, having drawn attention to the thread and alerted the person you were attempting to confront, you've demonstrated that the posturing meant nothing.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_thus spoke the wizard
furious behind the cloak~
fire and brimstone, eh_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> _thus spoke the wizard
> furious behind the cloak~
> fire and brimstone, eh_


You saw _Cabin in the Woods_ too, huh?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_saw it not, I fear~
do tell, what's it all about?
oh, never mind, Oz
_


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

I think the title of this thread is sensationalistic. This topic should have been discussed within that same thread. Though some are saying they would not have been aware of "the issue" without this separate thread, the title makes it seem like there is an issue with how women are treated on this entire forum. As far as I can tell, any misogynistic/sexist material has been limited to that one thread.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The idea that you can isolate threads deemed poisonous or inappropriate is itself problematic.... meaning well, we can slip into the mud of correct thinking.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

okcomputer said:


> I think the title of this thread is sensationalistic. This topic should have been discussed within that same thread. Though some are saying they would not have been aware of "the issue" without this separate thread, the title makes it seem like there is an issue with how women are treated on this entire forum. As far as I can tell, any misogynistic/sexist material has been limited to that one thread.


I've already defended this several times. I thought it was important enough, to move out into another one, also to have others who avoid the religious thread. Important enough that I was ready to leave.

It does very much have to do with the forum. I wanted a discussion on it. No other forum I know of personally would allow such comments. But, if they are allowed to stand, and I do see why they can be, I was a little concerned at the clamping down on the reactions. If someone can not restrain themselves and post such offensive material, I'm supposed to? That's a double standard to me, if you're going to allow an open discussion. I didn't go right off the edge in my responses, and I do find the notion that reasonable comments in the face of such offensive material, a really lame response. 

Obviously, someone who found the report button found my reaction more offensive than the misogynist comments, and that speaks volumes in my opinion.

Was I a little half cokked in my reaction? Yes.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've had my moments on this forum too, groovetube. 

I know there are people on this forum who have me on 'ignore' because they didn't appreciate my responses to their or other's posts, but I think that is just a matter of personality conflict. I call 'em like I see 'em. Some people appreciate honesty while others prefer constant validation no matter how stupid their decisions are. Forums make us interact with people that in real life we probably would choose not to share air with.

If my opinion counts for anything, I think your reaction was 'understandable' but not particularly 'productive'.

Was the title sensationalistic? I don't know ... it certainly got my attention.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

thanks MLeh, appreciate your comments


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Hmmm. Didn't have time to read the original thread, but it sounds like the topic went beyond "a women's place is at home in the kitchen, etc., etc." which I don't personally believe, but I know there are commmunities in Canada and the US that believe this - hutterite and amish communities still exist. But it sounds like the discussion went WAY past that from the words I see being thrown around.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Hmmm. Didn't have time to read the original thread, but it sounds like the topic went beyond "a women's place is at home in the kitchen, etc., etc." which I don't personally believe, but I know there are commmunities in Canada and the US that believe this - hutterite and amish communities still exist. But it sounds like the discussion went WAY past that from the words I see being thrown around.


One person got really upset.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MLeh said:


> Forums make us interact with people that in real life we probably would choose not to share air with.


Ain't that the everluvin' truth, Mleh. And when you get down to it, not everyone plays well with others.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I wouldn't mind an apology for saying that "woman bashing is protected here". 

If anything, archaic *views* on woman are exposed and berated here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> *I wouldn't mind an apology for saying that "woman bashing is protected here". *
> 
> If anything, archaic *views* on woman are exposed and berated here.


I would concur with that sentiment... 

As worst the "woman bashing" that was done did not suggest any physical bashing at all just an outdated, archaic and misogynistic view of relationships between men and women... 

It was the author of this thread that elevated it to anything beyond that... *He* was the only one to talk about physical violence toward women... even the member with whom he had exception to his posts (as did I and others as well, even before he joined in) never mentioned any such thing... it seems some people's imagination will run...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehmax said:


> i wouldn't mind an apology for saying that "woman bashing is protected here".
> 
> If anything, archaic *views* on woman are exposed and berated here.


+1


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> I wouldn't mind an apology for saying that "woman bashing is protected here".
> 
> If anything, archaic *views* on woman are exposed and berated here.


that wasn't really directed at you ehMax. I understand the need to lay a general rule to calm a heated exchange.

But it seemed a few were more upset at my reaction, though even muted, than what was said. And that's how it appeared to me.

That is why I started the thread, to clear the air. The thread title did not say, that attitudes were bad towards women, it merely was to the point on what the thread title was. Some were content to continually bash even starting it, but I didn't feel it could be discussed in the heat of the topic in the other thread.

As far as the other member who seemed so upset at my comment(s) in the religion thread, I might remind him that I have yet to insult another member so badly as for a good long time member to leave altogether.

As I said, I had a family member beaten black and blue by a man who expressed the same -exact- views as the comments as I read here. People need to understand it must be confronted. So, I will not apologize, for making a bit of a stink about it. If that results in my being asked to leave, so be it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> that wasn't really directed at you ehMax. I understand the need to lay a general rule to calm a heated exchange.


That's not the way I read it. It was a direct and deliberate statement aimed squarely at ehMac and the mayor.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Of course you did. But no, it was not. If there is any confusion, I have now clarified this, as not, my intent at all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The mayor has every right and reason to request an apology. The ball is in now your court.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think someone should mind their own business. I will discuss this with ehmax thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I think someone should mind their own business. I will discuss this with ehmax thanks.


EhMax made it public, the statement was made in public and you want to keep it quiet? Riiiight.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Sinc: are you being part of the solution?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Sinc: are you being part of the solution?


As much as anyone else involved in this debate MLeh... there is a lot of finger pointing going on and it involves two members in particular IMO... the rules here have been made quit clear by the Mayor and I personally agree with them... attack the idea/opinion not the poster... That is what I did...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

groovetube said:


> that wasn't really directed at you ehMax. I understand the need to lay a general rule to calm a heated exchange.
> 
> But it seemed a few were more upset at my reaction, though even muted, than what was said. And that's how it appeared to me.
> 
> ...


I agree, the *views* need to be confronted. I'm not asking for an apology because you made a stink about it. I'm asking for an apology for insinuating that "woman bashing is protected here." Whether it was directed at me or not, the notion that because others took you to task for *how you confronted it* in by no way shape or form should have been construed that anyone here was "protecting woman bashing". It was a completely erroneous connection to make. Members I saw who took you to task for how your were confronting it were also tackling the issue themselves. 

I'm not demanding an apology nor will I be asking anyone to leave. I'm just chatting on a forum with some civility which is all I am asking anyone to do. 

I understand your frustration especially in light of your personal experience. I've gone over the edge on my keyboard myself over issues that hit close to home. Still, I'd cool down, apologize, and move on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MLeh said:


> Sinc: are you being part of the solution?


Probably not, but when attacked, counter. Simple as that.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems the po po are out and about this fine evening.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ehMax said:


> I agree, the *views* need to be confronted. I'm not asking for an apology because you made a stink about it. I'm asking for an apology for insinuating that "woman bashing is protected here." Whether it was directed at me or not, the notion that because others took you to task for *how you confronted it* in by no way shape or form should have been construed that anyone here was "protecting woman bashing". It was a completely erroneous connection to make. Members I saw who took you to task for how your were confronting it were also tackling the issue themselves.
> 
> I'm not demanding an apology nor will I be asking anyone to leave. I'm just chatting on a forum with some civility which is all I am asking anyone to do.
> 
> I understand your frustration especially in light of your personal experience. I've gone over the edge on my keyboard myself over issues that hit close to home. Still, I'd cool down, apologize, and move on.


The truth is Mayor, not everyone took me to task over it. A few did. And I will point out, the very same few that are so quick to chastise anyone they don't like for a jab etc., even though they themselves, are consistently guilty of it themselves. There were also members who agreed with my responses (save the one you pointed out). They're more interested in hitting that report post button (!) than what really happened. The same one(s) would have insulted others.

My comment "women bashers are protected here" was too far. I apologize to you, for this. That was not my intent in the comment, so I will make that clear. I certainly don't want to infer that you in any way, are complicit or encourage "women bashers".

However, I don't agree that comments like that should be tolerated. That's my opinion. I thought that the forum rules:


> You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, *abusive*, vulgar, *hateful*, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by ehMac.


would have covered such views, but I guess this is something to be interpreted. 
--edited to prevent further freakfest.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

No, the two are not to be compared by themselves, only in context of what is, and isn't permitted here.

If anyone is very offended by the example I used, I'd be happy to change it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

steviewhy said:


> godwin
> 
> [/thread]


+1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose if we allow people on this forum to say that racists exist "only in Alberta" then we can allow the posts in the Religion topic to stand as well.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/94672-canadian-political-thread-485.html#post1188071


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------

