General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFark To Add 'Misogyny' to List of Bannable Offenses
Article on JezebelRebecca Rose
JEZEBEL
Rebecca Rose
Filed to: MISOGYNY
SEXISM
ONLINE
CYBERBULLYING
HARASSMENT
COMPUTERS
TECHNOLOGY
FORUMS
COMMENTING
FARK
DREW CURTIS
Hell yes. A major online community is cracking down on instances of abusive language towards women and guess what? It's a really big fucking deal and you should feel good about it.
Today Fark announced it would add misogyny to its moderator guidelines. For those who aren't familiar with the site, Fark (founded in 1999) was one of the first major link aggregators. They also just became one of the first sites of its kind to outright ban misogyny in comments. Let that sink in for a moment. They're doing what many other sites have said is virtually impossible because of technological reasons or because of it would cause the absolute goddamn collapse of all civil liberties and free speech or something. But Fark.com founder and site admin Drew Curtis said fuck all that noise. He just laid some serious smack down in the battle to stop online harassment of women. In a message posted today on the site, Curtis got real about the Internet's problem with women:
...if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)It simply requires viewing women as human beings worthy of respect.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)I'm familiar with a site that generally doesn't tolerate racism or homophobia. It's not consistent, but there is a feeling that neither of those things are acceptable. The world has not ended because posts and posters with those attitudes are, for the most part, not allowed. Give me a moment and the name of that site will come to me. Anyway, I don't think adding misogyny to 'what is not allowed' would that difficult for any popular website. Maybe for small, insignificant ones it would be.
Response to REP (Reply #21)
Post removed
littlemissmartypants
(22,853 posts)Thanks for your post.
Love, Peace and Shelter.
~ Lmsp
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Banning
COMPUTERS
TECHNOLOGY
FORUMS
COMMENTING
Don't know what FARK is but it must not be real active!
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and a good start. Here's hoping that other major online communities follow suit.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)"...we don't want to be the He Man Woman Hater's Club. This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community operates that I figure an announcement is necessary."
redqueen
(115,108 posts)operates..."
So sadly true.
Bless him for taking this step.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)the more views that treat women are less are treated as just another opinion, the more bigotry is reinforced and perpetuated. That's as true for misogyny as any other kind of bigotry.
REP
(21,691 posts)Fark is not a gentle community of group hugs and maturity. When a site like Fark steps up and says, in effect, 'enough of this bullshit,' it's pretty significant.
I want to say a little something that's long overdue
The disrespect to women has got to be through
To all the mothers and sisters and the wives and friends
I want to offer my love and respect to the end
Beastie Boys - Sure Shot
bigtonka
(28 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)From Jefferson's First Inaugural Address. "... errors of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it."
The only reason to prohibit thought crimes is if you are so unsure of your position that you can't defend it. The most conspicuous example of this is in the Religion and Atheist threads. Or better yet, fundamentalist Islam.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Thoughtcrime! Censorship! 1984!
splort splort splort
Nobody is preventing people from holding or expressing their thoughts. I'm sure the poor misogynists can find other sites to get their hate on - like the entire rest of the internet.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Hate speech being limited on a private site
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)I mean, if banning certain types of speech on a site amounts to monitoring "thought crimes" when it's Fark banning misogynistic comments... then DU has no business banning posts that make personal insults, or insult gays, or rant against Democratic candidates during an election. Because, you know, free(dumb).
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Phentex
(16,334 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)We really do not want to waste time giving Tea Baggers, racists and other RW haters free reign here. They have 90% of the internet already. You want to engage, go and have at it.
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)Oh, and K&R for the thread.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But its not, so it doesnt
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)object to.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)issue ... or, maybe not.
No one is prohibiting thinking.
No one is even questioning your motive.
It is the ACTION that is being discussed.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)redqueen
(115,108 posts)...if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women.
Progress!
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)What technological reasons? It's no harder to prohibit misogyny than any other form of bigotry. It is simply a question of what values and principles the site wants to reflect. It's great FARK took a stand. I've never used the site but I'll make a point of looking for it now.
REP
(21,691 posts)Rebecca Rose (the author) was being a bit sceptical of the usual reasons of "oh no, we can't do anything about misogyny."
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)My comment was about the absurdity of it.
REP
(21,691 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)It deserves a kick!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)redqueen
(115,108 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)Probably not, but it'd be a nice start.