[Closed] Sexism on STW (a goodbye and some thanks 🙂 )

TJ - You can't just take a phrase, decide it means something it does not and get offended by your own interpretation.

I'm not suggesting that some comments here don't cross a line but once again common sense needs to prevail.

its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others.

True, but if you are not aware of how others perceive something then you can't really be blamed for inadvertently offending them with a meaning you'd never considered.

You (TJ) and I both managed to offend someone on here last night by using the phrase "godbotherers" even though neither of us considered it offensive. Should we both be banned?

Its clear that to many of us on here it does mean rape.

No, not many, a minority including you. On this page of 14 posts (currently), only one is complaining (yours)and 4 are saying they've never felt it referenced rape. Give it up man, you're wrong...

its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others.

Ah, right. That's cleared it up. Just in case someone makes a bizarre interpretation of anything anyone types, we'd better not type anything. In fact, just to be safe, lets get the forum closed, lest anyone be offended.

It's not a term that I've ever posted since it's unnecessarily crude IMO but I certainly never read it as unconsensual and I've never actally heard it used in that context in the real world either

+1

Has she gone yet? I really wanted to say goodbye.

500!

Give it up man, you're wrong...

Both of these things are impossible where dearest TJ is concerned

grum - I'm being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words **** and **** are.

You (TJ) and I both managed to offend someone on here last night by using the phrase "godbotherers" even though neither of us considered it offensive. Should we both be banned?

Great example.

This time last year, Andy Gray and Richard Keys were getting their jotters from a national broadcaster for indulging in dated locker-room "banter" when they thought no one was listening, despite being sat in front of a bank of cameras and recording equipment. It provoked a debate along the lines of this thread on a national scale.

I'd never heard the phrase until that fiasco

TandemJeremy - Member

Its clear [s]that to many of us on here[/s]to me it does mean rape.

TJ If you are genuinely interpreting the "back doors" phrase in that way, it says more about your grubby little mind than it does about people who use the phrase.

FWIW Its not a phrase I'd consider meaning I'd like to rape someone, anyone using it in that context should quite rightly be given a time out for that sentiment.
I'd always interpreted the "back doors" phrase as a modern take on "i'd give her one". Not PC or respectful to women either I admit, but certainly not suggesting raping someone.

joolsburger - Member

TJ - You can't just take a phrase, decide it means something it does not and get offended by your own interpretation.

1) its not just me who sees it as meaning rape - many of us do so its at best possible to misunderstand it / misinterpret it. At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me

Read the posts by Ernie or Orangina

2) I am not offended - this is another canard that people make up. where have I claimed to be offended?

I think its an offensive phrase - ie has the ability to offend- and the attitudes that people have that allow them to see it as inoffensive are unacceptable

Its not about what offends me - its about what is acceptable on the forum. The mods position on this is quite clear.

its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others

Seriously?
Every time I open my mouth I should consider what I'm about to say from 7 billion various perspectives? No. I'm not a politician or a brown noser. If you misinterpret what I say, it's your problem.

Its clear that to many of us on here it does mean rape.

But, this is a misunderstanding on your / their part. This issue has been highlighted and corrected (which, I think, is another good thing to have come out of this discussion). Why would you continue to deliberately infer another meaning after it's been explained?

You might as well argue that I can't use the word "orange" because to you it means a lewd act with a badger.

t worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me

Cos, of course, no-one's ever had rough consensual sex...

Its clear that to many of us on here it does mean rape.

Does it even matter though ? Why does anyone need to talk about anal sex in mixed company - irrespective of whether it's consensual or non-consensual?

I try to post on here as I would talk on a bike ride which includes mixed company. Anal sex isn't a topic which I encounter very much in that sort of situation.

TJ +1

The first time I heard that phrase I thought about what it meant as it seemed weird. The only explanation it could be is rape. What else could it mean? Rough consensual rumpy-pumpy? Breaking and entering her house?

Both of these things are impossible where dearest TJ is concerned

He really does boil my piss.

I'm amazed that anyone could think [s]otherwise[/s] differently to myself and can't get my head round that concept.

FIFY.

So, to summarise:

A female forum member expresses dislike over certain attitudes which are present on the forum, and in particular one oft-used phrase which she finds very offensive.

Several other women post that they too also find such attitudes and comments offensive.

Many people ask for a change in attitudes in some people, in order that the forum can be a nicer environment for all.

A few people simply don't understand any of this, and struggle to understand why other people think differently to themselves, and instead of actually trying to engage in intelligent discussion, uses this as an excuse to continue acting without empathy, understanding or respect for others. And probably think thay are ever so clever and funny...

That's about it really, is not it?

Ok so, here's two ways things can work:

[i]Please don't use comments like that, I find them offensive'[/i]

'Oh, sorry, I haddunt considered that they might be, but I can see your point and I respect you for speaking out. I shall endeavour to consider such things in future, in order that we can all get along better'

= Positive outcome.

Or:

[i]Please don't use comments like that, I find them offensive'[/i]

'Oh well you're just too sensitive why don't you go elsewhere then if you don't like it why should I change my behaviour in any way?'

= negative outcome.

It's not really rocket science, is it? Or even science for that matter. It's just about common courtesy and respect for others, is all.

How's that work then ?

Because I'm actually lovely and everybody here loves me and wants me to stay. 🙂

+1 Ernie.

(God, there really is a disturbance in the Force this morning)

At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me

Don't be an idiot TJ, plenty of us have heard the phrase, heard it only ever used one way and taken it to mean that. I'd never even considered that it means unconsensual.

In exactly the same way that once a phrase becomes known you don't actually think about the words themselves, hence the use of forceful words is irrelevant. Obviously I can see how people who weren't familiar with the term and heard it used could come up with the logic you suggest and come up with a different explanation.

All that said, either way, there's no need for it to be posted.

"smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me

But saying 'open her back doors' instead would imply you'd like to have a look up the back passage rather than have anal intercourse.

Obviously I can see how people who weren't familiar with the term and heard it used could come up with the logic you suggest and come up with a different explanation.

As above, I found out on Google what it's supposed to mean in about five seconds.

It's not really rocket science, is it? Or even science for that matter. It's just about common courtesy and respect for others, is all.

Well said.

Incidentally,

Another good thing to come out of this thread is, it's pulled all the weevils out of the woodwork. I've now got a nice, healthy list of complete nobbers who I know to avoid in future.

its not just me who sees it as meaning rape - many of us do so its at best possible to misunderstand it / misinterpret it. At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me

Read the posts by Ernie or Orangina

yes do that

completely ignore a post highlighting where the the phrase has been used in front of 40,000 women and universally accepted as being consensual.

oldnpastit

I've always read it as being a reference to rape. I'm amazed anyone could think otherwise.

ernie_lynch
I've always taken it as meaning non-consensual sex, or at the very least, some degree of resistance.

Otherwise it would be something along the lines of "using the back door/trademen's entrance". Why would anyone talk about 'kicking doors in', if they are being 'welcomed' ?

orangina - Member
BUT - and this is a firm and big BUT - 'Kicking in the back door' - I didn't know the expression til I came to this thread - is outrageous and wrong on so many levels.
You CANNOT give rape a pet name, rape is always rape and has to be called that. You cannot use this in any way to describe it, you're making the act less severe and mock it. If your partner was raped, would you use this expression to describe the crime ?

StefMcDe

I'm with TJ and the handwringing do-gooders on this one. I'm no prude but "banter" which implies, jokes about or normalises violent, unconsensual sex is bad form. So "kicking back doors in", "would you smash it", "that winger's raped the full-back all day long" - I would think less of anyone, mates included, who use this terminology.

Karinofnine - The remark which put me off being here is the back doors remark. Sorry, but it isn't funny, flippant, lighthearted, a parody, analogy or a joke. It is a reference to unconsensual sex - ie rape, and rape simply ain't funny (from either a male or female perspective).

Just going back a couple of pages.

so its not just me who sees it in this way.

druidh - Member
grum - I'm being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words **** and ****

Honestly? Do Scottish people really suffer from genuine serious discrimination/racism then? Shall we ban sassenach too then? I don't much like Jock or 'Sweaty' either tbh though...

completely ignore a post where the the phrase has been used in front of 40,000 women and accepted as being consensual.

Trailmonkey; something for you to think about:

Who, in that situation, was using the comment?

(Thinking about the use of the 'N' word by Black music artists my help in this context...)

grum - I'm being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words **** and ****

As the subject of the comment, Onion has every right to express his dislike for it, if he finds it offensive. I think he makes a very good point actually.

A Scottish mate of ours was jokingly called 'Jock' by a couple of our group. Not to be ofensive, more affectionately really. He turned round one day and sed 'dinnae call me Jock, eh? I dinnae like it. Call me 'Scottish Bastard' if ye like, but no' Jock'.

So, they listened to what he sed, and respected his wishes by not using that word again.

Mind you, they are [i]reasonably[/i] intelligent Human Beings...

Just so I can set the record straight, I don't and I won't use that phrase. Have a look through my posts TJ should you wish (and I'm sure you're 'anal' enough). For reference, I also don't use the 'C' word - I find that offensive and overuse of any swearwords i find unnecessary as well.

However, you misquoted me to start with and you've continued to argue that its a reference to rape even when it isn't ever since.

Apply some common sense to the situation. Those that think its rape related are in the minority, many have stated that although it doesn't they do find it offensive. THerefore the feeling is that we shouldn't use the term. Simple.

Now for the love of God, please stop....

its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others

TJ - aside from the observation that your assertion rather flies in the face of trends in linguistic theory, typing it on here does leave you with a fairly massive hostage to fortune in the future with future contributions to this or any other debate.

For my own part, I've always thought the "smashing back doors in" terminology had rather abusive overtones, even if it's not intended to imply non-consensual sex. As such, I had it mentally filed under [i]'knuckle dragger'[/i] alongside a little picture of Richard Keys and Andy Gray.

At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me

Not force, just [u]consensual[/u] passion, enthusiasm and vigour.

I've never yet met a woman who, in the throes of ecstatic passion, has cried out "Softer, softer, slower, slower".

But still, +1 Elf.

Very long story short forced censorship is never good but then again politeness and respect cost nothing and are an essential part of society. I've used that phrase here several times but may think twice before doing so again or I may not, depends on the context.

Many people ask for a change in attitudes in some people, in order that the forum can be a nicer environment for all.

So why haven't you changed then Elf?

You seem more than happy to ask for it in others.

+1 in the "I never thought it meant anal rape" category......

Although it's not exactly a great phrase to use whatever the circumstances. I can't think where I've heard it, apart from on here.

It's interesting that the above quoted post by hora was reported to the mods by Junkyard and they let it stand.

Now for the love of God, please stop....

"Listen, and understand. TJ is out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right."

"Listen, and understand. TJ is out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right."

I'm starting to understand this...

#

TandemJeremy - Member

oldnpastit

I've always read it as being a reference to rape. I'm amazed anyone could think otherwise.

ernie_lynch
I've always taken it as meaning non-consensual sex, or at the very least, some degree of resistance.

Otherwise it would be something along the lines of "using the back door/trademen's entrance". Why would anyone talk about 'kicking doors in', if they are being 'welcomed' ?

orangina - Member
BUT - and this is a firm and big BUT - 'Kicking in the back door' - I didn't know the expression til I came to this thread - is outrageous and wrong on so many levels.
You CANNOT give rape a pet name, rape is always rape and has to be called that. You cannot use this in any way to describe it, you're making the act less severe and mock it. If your partner was raped, would you use this expression to describe the crime ?

StefMcDe

I'm with TJ and the handwringing do-gooders on this one. I'm no prude but "banter" which implies, jokes about or normalises violent, unconsensual sex is bad form. So "kicking back doors in", "would you smash it", "that winger's raped the full-back all day long" - I would think less of anyone, mates included, who use this terminology.

Karinofnine - The remark which put me off being here is the back doors remark. Sorry, but it isn't funny, flippant, lighthearted, a parody, analogy or a joke. It is a reference to unconsensual sex - ie rape, and rape simply ain't funny (from either a male or female perspective).

Just going back a couple of pages.

so its not just me who sees it in this way.
I have posted this again as it got lost at the bottom of a page.

ditch_jockey - Member

"its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others"

TJ - aside from the observation that your assertion rather flies in the face of trends in linguistic theory, typing it on here does leave you with a fairly massive hostage to fortune in the future with future contributions to this or any other debate.

so its acceptable to say offensive things if there is no intent to offend?

Thats the Jim Davidson defense

Its acceptable to say ****? chink for chinese? so long as you didn't intend to offend?

grum - Member
Honestly? Do Scottish people really suffer from genuine serious discrimination/racism then? Shall we ban sassenach too then? I don't much like Jock or 'Sweaty' either tbh though...

Maybe I'm just a sensitive soul, but I'd never use Paddy or Mick or Taff either.

As for sassenach, that's the gaelic word for "southerner" and my mother-in-law would use it to describe me without being at all perjorative.

Trailmonkey; something for you to think about:

Who, in that situation, was using the comment?

(Thinking about the use of the 'N' word by Black music artists my help in this context...)

doesn't matter, the point is being made over and over that the phrase means rape.

are you suggesting that a woman is asking someone to rape her or that women might enjoy that ?

or are we now saying that women can use the phrase but men can't ?

what about gay men that are happy to indulge in anal sex ? can they say it ?

clarification needed.

wwtjd ?

Please make it stop 🙁

And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right

And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is right."

Sadly, there are occasions where his viewpoint never will be, then you get situations such as this...

I'm with trailmonkey on this: If 40,000 screaming females seemed to like the remark, then presumably that outranks 10 hand-wringers on an internet forum?

Mods - I'm as keen on free speech as the next person but this thread is now 14 pages long and has descended into an increasingly familiar mix of disproportionate outrage, piss taking and endless pedantry in order for some egocentric posters to score spurious points over their perceived rivals.

Will continuation of this thread really do the forum or STW any good? Please close the thread.

Do you deliberately intend to offend by calling people "godbotherer" TJ.

I kind of agree with your point but I think you're on shaky ground...

No one is now saying that no one considers the phrase is talking about rape BUT equally, many have also said that they never considered it that way. The key point is whether anyone who uses the phrase will continue using it that way now.

The fact that this thread has descended into TJ digging his heels in and a number of other people pitching in either pro or anti epitomises what I find bad on this forum.

It's laready been agreed (by most) that the phrase shoudln't be used on here any more it really [b]doesn't matter[/b] that it means different things to different people.

If people report its use and the moderators delete the posts then it's sorted out.

5 pages of TJ v the world isn't going to make it any more better and just means the thread descends into bickering, losing the point being made by the op.

TJ - please look at the bigger picture it's not just about that phrase it's about attitudes.

Probably shouldn't say this but....

Amongst many of my friendship group we joke about all sorts of appalling things, some of the women I know are at least as bad as the blokes. Sometimes there's little that's off limits. Sometimes things can be funny [i]because[/i] they are so offensive/unpleasant.

I dunno whether this is 'ok' or not, but I realise for many people it's not, and I wouldn't dream of doing it in front of people I didn't know. It's just basic politeness.