Difference between revisions of "2010-06-07 Consumerist.com declares wolf whistles at women is not sexism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(new page from form at http://www.issuepedia.org/Issuepedia:Forms/link/news) |
(elaboration, typofixes) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<let name=data index=Text>A longtime reader of [[Consumerist]] is dismayed by [[sexist]] comments on a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/did-citibank-fire-this-woman-for-being-too-sexy.html post abous sexism], and sends a private message (to the editor, the post's author, and the two co-Managing Editors) that these comments are in violation of Consumerist's [http://consumerist.com/comments-code/ Comments Code], which prohibits "sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia or hatred" with a penalty of banning or [[disemvowelment]]. | <let name=data index=Text>A longtime reader of [[Consumerist]] is dismayed by [[sexist]] comments on a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/did-citibank-fire-this-woman-for-being-too-sexy.html post abous sexism], and sends a private message (to the editor, the post's author, and the two co-Managing Editors) that these comments are in violation of Consumerist's [http://consumerist.com/comments-code/ Comments Code], which prohibits "sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia or hatred" with a penalty of banning or [[disemvowelment]]. | ||
| − | There was no response, but there was a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/sexy-banker-chase-told-me-to-shut-up-about-citibank-lawsuit.html follow-up article] -- on which she posted | + | There was no response, but there was a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/sexy-banker-chase-told-me-to-shut-up-about-citibank-lawsuit.html follow-up article] -- on which she posted a comment, again pointing out the problem. In response she received this reply: |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>Mizmoose, I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic for you, but as you know very well, it's not appropriate to grind this axe in an unrelated thread.</p> | <p>Mizmoose, I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic for you, but as you know very well, it's not appropriate to grind this axe in an unrelated thread.</p> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
...and is apparently banned from the site. She cannot log in and post comments or even flag comments for Code violation. | ...and is apparently banned from the site. She cannot log in and post comments or even flag comments for Code violation. | ||
| − | If | + | If correct, this is a particularly sneaky move on the admin's part: others will assume she had no response to his reply. Note also the emotional manipulation of "sensitive topic for you" and "grind this axe" (implying that Mizmoose was the only one bothered by the post, and that her reasons were an emotional overreaction rather than a rational or reasonable objection). |
| + | |||
| + | He also implies that she is breaking the rules, but doesn't explain how -- and doesn't tell her that he is banning her. | ||
</let> | </let> | ||
| − | <let name=data index=TextShort>A longtime reader of [[Consumerist]] is dismayed by [[sexist]] comments on a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/did-citibank-fire-this-woman-for-being-too-sexy.html post | + | <let name=data index=TextShort>A longtime reader of [[Consumerist]] is dismayed by [[sexist]] comments on a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/did-citibank-fire-this-woman-for-being-too-sexy.html post about sexism], sends a private message about the problem, receives no reply, posts a related comment on a [http://consumerist.com/2010/06/sexy-banker-chase-told-me-to-shut-up-about-citibank-lawsuit.html follow-up article] -- and is banned.</let> |
</hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if> | </hide><if not flag=including><let name=docat val=1 /><noinclude>{{:project:code/show/link}}</noinclude></if> | ||