Proposal to Amend DU TOS Language

and I am a bit surprised it is not already there. Still, I don't know how much practical difference it will make.

because there are members who think that the TOS doesn't prohibit it.
I agree though that it won't be a magic solution.

Given how often the ToS are violated in this respect, it needs to be clarified. Maybe with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

Then, they might get your point.

I'm always of mixed minds about eliminating anything from discourse on DU. I know that the terms of service already do so, to create an envelope of comfort here. Still, I'm leery of seeking an echo chamber of like minded folks. We NEED to keep these difficult dialogs alive for as long as they are a part of the broader debate in the U.S. and elsewhere. Challenge misogyny! But not in ways that prohibit discourse that can educate.

If you allow a misogynistic post, not only does it insult others but it makes the site low-brow.

By restricting such posts, the writer is forced to control themselves and reflect on whether they are posting objectionable material. If they are going to post such content, they then need to rephrase it. It would help in altering the internal dialogs the writer has when formulating a post or reply. After a while, that reflection would become second nature, not only here but elsewhere.

I'm all for checking misogynistic comments. As a father of three daughters and someone with two sisters, I know they don't need to see that type of dialog online. It's bad enough when the middle school and high school kids tell them not to run for office but instead make them sandwiches.

Now, the schools they go to have mostly young women as their class presidents. One of my daughters was one of them.

We are not going to allow racist language or stereotypes to explore issues of racism. Why do we have to allow sexist assumptions to have a discourse on sexism.

You can do whatever you want within your own discussion groups, but I will not support use of a word, with no other offense, as a TOS violation on DU.

You can not eliminate bigotry by banning words.

If others don't see the bigotry, they won't feel the waters are safe to jump in as it is not encouraged or acceptable to participants on this site. Besides, other people don't want to see what type of dysfunctional family you might have been raised in.

Do you curse in church? Do you curse or act like a bigot in your children's school?

If you feel it's safe to do it here, then you don't fully respect the site or half of its members.

If you want to act a bigot at home, beat your family members or do whatever floats your boat - keep it in YOUR house. If I see you act a bigot in front of my kid or friends or I see your family members with unexplainable injuries.. then there is a problem.

PS. This is coming from a staunch financial supporter of the EFF.

Rather, the intent is to provide a better framework for understanding when the usage is sexist or misogynistic.

One can't eliminate bigotry by banning words but one can effect a change in perceptions by condemning certain usages. Calling an adult male of color "boy," for example. You'd be hard pressed to find DUers who support the right to call A/A men boys, but you don't have to search too long before you'll find DUers who think it's A-okay to call women bitches (gender-specific) even when they'd call men with the same behaviors assholes (gender-neutral.) I could go on, but you probably catch my drift.

All those choice words of invective that involve physical body parts and secondary sexual characteristics would be off-limits at DU? Are you trying to ban insults at DU, or just to neuter them?

Either way, this seems to be another exercise in trying to impose standards on a broader community that are better understood and accepted within your particular forums and groups.

An insult is an insult, no matter how it's expressed. To insult another DU Member on account of race, sexual preference, gender, etc. is already a violation of the rules. It's a violation to simply insult someone in any way that's "rude, over the top, etc." Why is there any need for all of us to go further than that in defining rules that apply to sexism or mysogyny?

The TOS specifically mentions bigotry based on gender yet I've seen far too many examples of people claiming there's no ban on sexism. Based on which word is used, the term may be 1)nearly always sexist, 2) sometimes sexist, or 3) sexist rarely or never.

This isn't a word war. Word usage is only a part of sexist behavior. Using frames that play off stereotypes, particularly crude ones, are IMHO a bigger problem on DU.

As for imposing standards on the broader community that are better accepted within certain groups, that's not the issue. It's clarifying what constitutes the existing standards for the broader community which is why it's a TOS issue. The TOS on bigotry has examples to amplify some of the prohibitions but there's no example for gender bigotry. On top of that, I've been quite surprised to read many DUers claiming that bigotry based on gender is somehow unrelated to sexism. Adding that word as part of an example would help clear up that misconception.

As for insults always being insults, that only holds true when all of the readers are using similar references to assess the insult. For example when a New England grandmother says "Bless his heart" it is absolutely, positively not an insult. When a Southerner uses the phrase, it may be indeed be an insult.

except as criticism of them...

bitch/bitchy/bee-atch

whore except in the media sense

slut or anything that implies the same thing

likewise anything that presumes chastity as an affirmative duty of women

anything that suggests negative views or emotions (complaints, anger etc.) are caused by a regular biological occurrence

harpie

hysteria (literally a movement of the uterus--a catch all term for female mental disorders)

suggestions that domestic service or reproduction is the natural role of women

All I can think of off the top of my head.

Are related to things I may have said. I've been vocal about not being that shocked over hearing bitch used in a sentence. Maybe I watch too much daytime tv. I hope anyone who can't stand seeing it in print here, does not watch television.

I've been in life threatening abusive relationship and let words sink in and crush my heart, especially when it was not true or accurate. It hurt more. I was in college and taking assertiveness training, and keeping a journal for class. We had to basically wear out the sting of those words and phrases, by saying yes I may be a bitch and so is my mother, and so what's your point?
At a certain point the person hearing abusive language has to buy in to the speaker's intent and accept their pronouncements before it is destructive. It is up to the reader, or the listener to take the language to heart and suffer over it. I don't think it is necessary to buy in and start suffering, and blame others for your sadness and despair. A strong woman gets over it and moves on.
I don't want to be contrary. I just don't like the 'word' policing that goes on. It seems like an excuse to try and get people kicked off, DU, for mistakes in phrasing.