MP Forum Tone

I actually had no idea you were female until I clicked on your profile. Perhaps using your name would help?

Mountainproject is pretty much the kiddy pool already. If you come here primarily for trolling purposes, you probably deserve moderation by committee or whatever the upshot of this admin hissy fit is.

I come here for the beta, primarily. If you don't, you probably suck. I mean, that's what I want you all to know.

PS: I'm better than you.

EDITX2: ;)

EDITX3: Also, before this is deleted in the interests of free speech, I personally steer away from the long, drawn out, uninformative "discussions" that are referenced in the OP. You just can't win either way, and I don't think moderating the discussions into something you want to see is a solution either.

Women climbers deserve respect. People on the internet will continue to behave badly, regardless. Our President-elect is a clown on parade. What can you do?

Rick Blair wrote:I actually had no idea you were female until I clicked on your profile.

Good real-time example of how moderation can go wrong.

Old lady H wrote:How does it serve "the Cause" for males to decide to speak for us, or fight our battles, or protect us from...whatever? That was what was disappointing in the locked thread recently. Understandable, but...it gave the appearance of the males being the protectors, in a sense speaking for her, whether she wanted that or not, and/or the lady being less than capable, or a prima dona, and I don't think any of that was true at all.

Hmmm...
I can see you are giving this some thought and I have as well. I don't want the following to be taken as a disagreement, entirely, as I have the moments where I feel that way as well. So let me preface it with: "Here are some thoughts to add to that discussion."

I would not want to split it down gender lines as that sort of thing. There are people who act like jerks and there are people of both genders that are willing to call them on it.
I've done it, for sure, both been the jerk, and been the one calling it out when I saw it. As I've gotten older, I think the balance has shifted mostly to the latter, not the former.

You may (or may not) know that one of the more famous trolls known for having an (ironic?) twist of misogyny happens to be a certain female - Mitch Stewart, Etc... But I digress.

I don't think that there's much way of "beating" any such problem until such time that it's normal that really nobody accepts crappy behavior. I doubt that the site is going to censor someone making a joking gender reference (maybe inappropriate, but would be heavy handed) but I can see in a the recent thread why they'd lock it, as it became a minefield of people deliberately trying to provoke/offend along gender based lines.

Me, I stayed out of that one. I didn't see how it ended. I do recall a sigh and eye roll and wondering 'how will that end?'

At the same time, I have flagged comments on photos that were rather crude, and posts of pictures of strippers with comments that referred to other climbers, and comments on pictures I posted of female partners that were... unsavory.

I 'spose that's 'man-splaining' to some (though I'd say the same to a M/F because I just don't care), 'chauvinistic' to others, etc - but I'm hoping that some day we actually get to a state (prob not in our lifetimes) where gender doesn't matter for much. If we can get there, then maybe not everything someone does will have to do with their gender, nor be interpreted in the space thereof.

And I hope I'm not disqualified from being allowed to have or express that opinion just because I'm a man. Neither of my very close female friends/partners (of 30 years, in Jo's case) comes out and asks me to contribute to these threads. Neither of them expresses feelings to me that MP.com is unwelcoming to females more than any other place. But I know that both of them think (because we actually do talk about this kind of stuff) that they do get some unfair treatment in the climbing community. But when that stuff comes up, they tend to be in agreement with a lot of what gets said and never told me 'please don't speak up when you see something unfair going on.'

The war of the sexes is not completely over, nor is what side one takes always determined by their gender.

Anyway. I hope that there is a space where men can also voice a 'don't be a jerk' in all of this, and feel comfortable calling out bad behavior when they see it. For my own part, I will continue to do so. And I'll call it out likewise when anything I do is interpreted strictly as owing to my age/gender/race/orientation/etc as well. There are plenty of '-isms' out there.

JSH wrote: if you don't want your privilege checked.

Well, that's a loaded political term since it stems from a distortion of language. (We can get into Frederick Douglass essays over a beer if you like, I'm game. I liked his work, not Macintosh's abuse of it.)
No faster way to loose me as someone willing to call 'privilege.'
It should be sufficient to call out sexism. That's the bad actor, not their gender, race, etc...

JSH wrote:Men are allowed to be aggressive, angry, ambitious, while women are penalized for those labels, and "tone". Next?

Huh?
Aggressive.
In my experience if I encounter men that are being aggressive either I are someone else will call them out and if I am acting that way I would not be upset or surprised if one of my friends called me out and in fact I would probably thank them for making me realize I was behaving like an idiot. I have never felt that aggressive behavior was ever been seen as being appropriate in a social setting. Admittedly I live in a bubble where people usually treat each other with respect.

I won't bore you with my man-splaining (you are welcome) but I feel that the baby has gone out with the bath water.

JSH wrote: your privilege checked.

Tony B wrote: Well, that's a loaded political term since it stems from a distortion of language.

I think the term you are looking for is "Orwellian".

Rick Blair wrote: I think the term you are looking for is "Orwellian".

Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me:
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree

I always liked this passage.

Anyway, it's a post-truth world now.

PS Glad I got a chance to chuckle at your deleted post.
Going to be a post-humor forum soon enough at this rate.

Mark E Dixon wrote: I still find it hard to believe that folks can practice a dangerous, potentially life ending sport, yet cannot find the courage to post on MP because some anonymous internet user might not be nice enough to them in reply.

It's not always about courage. Some of us just prefer polite, respectful communication.

I used to troll online and enjoy reading the abrasive back and forth. But I realized that I don't talk to people like that in real life, and it's not the kind of society I want to live in, and I decided to stop. Now, that kind of behavior online looks rude in my eyes.

I can easily imagine women not wanting to participate in a community that continually mocks their feelings, for example by throwing the idea of microagressions around as a joke.

Kent Richards wrote: throwing the idea of microagressions around as a joke.

It's far, far from a joke. It is orwellian thought control speech. I don't find anything funny about that.

Kent Richards wrote: It's not always about courage. Some of us just prefer polite, respectful communication. I used to troll online and enjoy reading the abrasive back and forth. But I realized that I don't talk to people like that in real life, and it's not the kind of society I want to live in, and I decided to stop. Now, that kind of behavior online looks rude in my eyes. I can easily imagine women not wanting to participate in a community that continually mocks their feelings, for example by throwing the idea of microagressions around as a joke.

That was my wife's reaction to my statement too.

You both may have a point. Not everyone enjoys banter. Maybe we need a sub-forum for sarcasm, etc.

As for micro-aggressions, I guess I'm not sold on the concept. I don't consider it a joke, although some of the applications are risible.
Mocking the concept is not the same thing as mocking someone's feelings.
I try not to do either.

Some people try to win an argument by being hostile and rude. Others try to win by being hostile and claiming micro-aggressions. The difference between these people is not always obvious to me.

IMHO, our society has lost the ability to disagree in a reasonable and civilized manner. Very few people can debate any subject, even one as insignificant as a new MP logo, without it turning into insults, sarcasm, name calling, and hurt feelings. Just look at our recent presidential debates to see how intelligent debate has deteriorated in post-Jerry Springer America.

And, I know, I brought up politics again and deserve to be punished for my stupidity....

I had to look up the definition of "microaggression".

doligo wrote:I had to look up the definition of "microaggression".

The ultimate authority, Janet Napolitano ( Fmr Homeland Security President now a University of Cal president) list of micro agression phrases.

“America is the land of opportunity,” “There is only one race, the human race” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”

Rick Blair wrote: It's far, far from a joke. It is orwellian thought control speech. I don't find anything funny about that.

Nobody (on MP or elsewhere) is controlling your thoughts; it can't be done. You can think whatever kind of thoughts you want, moronic or lofty, and no one on earth can stop you.

Expressing those thoughts in words or actions is something else entirely; speech is not exempt from consequences. And that's the thrust of Nick Wilder's initial post in starting this thread. If you post something offensive, there will be consequences (ridiculous whining about supposed "thought control" notwithstanding).

Welcome to the real world.

JL

Perfect! Can we also add a button for the "over commentator", then if they get clicked more than twice they can't comment for two weeks? That'd be greatttt hmmmmm K?

BigNobody wrote:Perfect! Can we also add a button for the "over commentator", then if they get clicked more than twice they can't comment for two weeks? That'd be greatttt hmmmmm K?

Let's make Mountain Project a popularity contest.. great

Mark E Dixon wrote: I was kind of disappointed Hank didn't reply publicly after his rant. Not sure what got into him that time. I don't know him personally, but I think he's actually the decent friendly guy his posting typically suggests. Anyway, most of us end up posting some things we regret, part of being human really. Sometimes you just have to say "man did I just embarrass myself!" make amends and move on.

That last part of your sentence, that's what we did. Made amends and moved on. And just like you said yourself, I don't know Old Lady M at all either so maybe I didn't appreciate her strong opinion of my "Grandfathers shotgun post". But she emailed me, I emailed her back and got over it.

You make a funny point Mark, you don't know Old Lady M and you don't know me, and we don't know each other, yet you have an opinion on how someone you don't know should have responded to someone you don't know..

edit to add- I stay super busy and don't hawk the Mountain Project forums at all really. I'm much better in person and my clunky posts show it.

Bill Kirby wrote: Let's make Mountain Project a popularity contest.. great

I don't like your tone Bill :)

And you are obviously oblivious to what I am saying. Do we really have to hear Jay eggelston say "looks great!" to every picture he looks at? Or that old perv Benji Chappedlips comment with thinly veiled comments on every girl picture? Gets old. I know I can just ignore that shit, but god damn it's annoying for some of us.