Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Facebook, hate speech, and women

[Warning: Extreme nasty remarks WRT the usual "all men would be rapists if they thought the odds were stacked in their favor" bullshit.  This is not my position, and I sure as hell hope the author of the article just left her brain in her other skull that day]

American Jobs Act dead.

[Bohandas]

See, these kinds of things are why I wish society would just collapse and be done with it. Here's to hoping that all centers of government and business get flattened by meteors.

[kaijyuu]

Hrm...

I wonder what Facebook's policy is on other empty threats and rude jokes (including racist, homophobic, etc ones). If they don't delete those, then yeah, I don't see this as anything other than extending their current policy. If they DO take empty threats down, then I'm on the author's side that there's some sexism going on.


IMO every threat of violence should be taken seriously online. So I guess I'm definitely on the author's side that Facebook should take these things down, but I'm not gonna buy "rawr Facebook hates women" until I see further evidence that they're actively avoiding removal of misogynistic stuff but not other types of hate or threats of violence. (and I'll also ignore the assumption that any reference to rape = rape against women)



Aaaaand sucks that the jobs act died.

[Vector]

I'm not sure.  The place where I found that article implied that the homophobic "jokes" were also permitted, but I don't have a better source for it.

In any case, I can be even more angry if it isn't only a women's rights issue >:I

[Leafsnail]

What Facebook and others who defend this pernicious hate speech don't seem to get is that rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street: rapists rape because they can. Rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll get away with it.

This is the offending passage, right?  While it is certainly ambiguous with a potential "all men would be rapists if the opportunity presented itself", I'm not sure if that's actually what she meant - afterall, she's saying the opportunity does exist and rapists don't get caught, and I don't think she's saying that average men actually are rapists.  I read it more as a poorly communicated "Rapists aren't a naturally occuring, unavoidable phenomenon - the reason we have so many of them is that it's too easy to do it without getting caught".

Although... to be honest, I can't really see either of the named Facebook pages being incitement at all, unless perhaps taken very literally (indeed, one of them seems to mock the idea of people playing "hard to get").  They're certainly in poor taste, but I'm not sure if that should be grounds for removal.

[Dsarker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04hiv.html?src=me&ref=general

So apparently the most common contraceptive used in Africa doubles HIV risk.

[Vector]

Interesting... that also has a lot of implications for pregnant women and HIV, because the hormones in the injections and pills make the body think it's already pregnant.

[SalmonGod]

AIDS in Africa is just a horrific situation in general...

[Dsarker]

According to the article, the study also recorded condom use, so while I haven't read the study it is apparently not just because of lack of barrier protection.

Another consideration that has to be made is that pregnant women are also (apparently, according to one of the researchers quoted in the article) more likely to transmit HIV.

[Leafsnail]

AIDS in Africa is just a horrific situation in general...

Not least because HIV is now pretty easily treatable for life providing you can afford anti-retrovirals (and indeed HIV is barely infectuous if you start taking them early enough).  The problems ultimately come down to lack of testing or money for the drugs...

[SalmonGod]

AIDS in Africa is just a horrific situation in general...

Not least because HIV is now pretty easily treatable for life providing you can afford anti-retrovirals (and indeed HIV is barely infectuous if you start taking them early enough).  The problems ultimately come down to lack of testing or money for the drugs...

Lots of social issues, too, from what I've heard.  Many of them major feminist issues.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As I understand it, early retroviral treatment for HIV makes your chances of actually spreading it to someone else effectively zero.

[Glowcat]

Fiscal responsibility is tossing more money into defending bigotry

Your tax dollars at work.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm in a computer simulation because this world is too FRACKING INSANE sometimes.

[Vector]

I'm sorry, but how the fuck is that anything like legal?

[ChairmanPoo]

Not 0, but it does reduce the odds.

IIRC there was a crazy study some years ago, of women who had husbands with aids, wanted to have children with them, yet did not want to opt for IVF techniques (I'm guessing for religious reasons). So the husbands had the antirretroviral treatment scaled up, and after that they got busy. Most of them did not develop aids. (Still, whereas it's nice that infectiveness is reduced, it's not something I would recommend)