Ethical question - Misogyny on these boards

[Ally]

No, I'm claming the word Retard is offensive to me as a disabled person. As is the word Spastic. Or Cripple. Or any other disablist name bandied about when deliberately used as an insult.

Well as a disabled person, the word retard is not offensive to me. Nor is Blind, deaf, or spastic. It's a word to describe a behavior or state. So, impasse.

I confess I am only a newbie but I read many posts before I joined up and only once was I a little shocked at what I read. And I guess it was less what I read than who wrote it. Someone who comes across as extremely courteous, highly intelligent, and - I am making some assumptions about sex here so could be wrong - referred to the victims of JTR as "whores" rather than "prostitutes".

From: "The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper", Martin Fido, 1993 Barnes & Noble Books

pg. 16: "Monday 6 August 1888, and Martha Tabram, a fat prostitute in her late thirties, ..."

"a fat prostitute"

same paragraph: "Complicated lists of nicknames, aliases and 'marital' names adopted from successions of common-law husbands abounded among the Whitechapel whores, ..."

"the Whitechapel whores"

I wonder if those attending the conference in Knoxville will be treated to such subtleties !!!


Colin

[BillyE]

Apologies for ranting!
Sasha

Actually Sasha, I found your post to be quite eloquent, and straight to the point. Yours was among the least offensive, and easy to read posts on this thread. Welcome to the Casebook.

[Sasha]

O.K. I think the ethics council may have been taken up the wrong way - all I was saying with that is that just because we are not subject to one does not mean we should not question are own ethics as a group. And if people are fine with outbursts from individuals like Mrwoo then I am perfectly happy to follow the concensus.

regards
Chris (having calmed down a bit from overreacting a tad)

P.S. I'm not modifying my views I'm just agreeing to disagree with some posters

Chris, as I mentioned earlier, I think this is a matter for the administrator and if you have problems with Woo or whoever you have two options 1) report them to the administrator (I assume there is punitive action for offensive bloggers like suspension, expulsion, excommunication etc ie he or she really should be playing the role of ethics committee among other things and/or 2) do not engage in discussions with them. I personally think the argument some are making that other JTR sites are worse is not an argument at all. And anyway, I have seen bloggers expelled from other sites for engaging in personal abuse. Just report the offense to the administrator. If enough people complain, the offender will be dealt with. A site cannot operate with no members.

[John Casey]

Because, and once again, not all disabled people are retards. Or are you claiming they are? 'Cause now that would be rude. Tsk.

No, I'm claming the word Retard is offensive to me as a disabled person. As is the word Spastic. Or Cripple. Or any other disablist name bandied about when deliberately used as an insult.

[truebluedub]

O.K. I think the ethics council may have been taken up the wrong way - all I was saying with that is that just because we are not subject to one does not mean we should not question are own ethics as a group. And if people are fine with outbursts from individuals like Mrwoo then I am perfectly happy to follow the concensus.

regards
Chris (having calmed down a bit from overreacting a tad)

P.S. I'm not modifying my views I'm just agreeing to disagree with some posters

[revpetero]

Offensive Posts

Somebody who reverts to names calling and offensive posting is obviously somebody who has no case to argue.

It it the final resort of a child. The discussions on this site are surely there so that we can all develop our understanding and listen to new legitimate and sometimes slightly outlandish new theories and thoughts without offending. There will always be arguements and disagreements but as long as they are structured and with a degree of rationale then they are healthy.

I don't feel we need an ethics policy and hopefully never will. If we can't be trusted to speak our minds in the confines of common decency then we are at a sorry stage.


Sorry if I offended anybody (not intended)

Peter

[Sasha]

Hi everyone,
considering recent comments on another thread http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=870 should we be concerned that some people are displaying intolerance towards women.

In my own view we should.

kind regards,
Chris Lowe

I dunno Chris. My gut response is that this is a question for the administrator - who I assume would want all members to be respectful toward one another. The other thing that comes to mind is that I have seen no disrespect from male members towards female members. And anyway, how would you really know who is male or female on this site. Members have membership names but there is no obligation to divulge one's real name or one's sex. The other thing that occurred to me - and maybe this is only wishful thinking - is that in 1888 a number of women were brutally murdered and no one seemed to care - either because they were women or because they were prostitutes or maybe both. Now people DO CARE. I assume most members on this site care. For me, that is not an indication of misogyny. It is true that some people have very strong beliefs and some of these respond strongly (badly?) when challenged - but I, personally, do not take this personally. I confess I am only a newbie but I read many posts before I joined up and only once was I a little shocked at what I read. And I guess it was less what I read than who wrote it. Someone who comes across as extremely courteous, highly intelligent, and - I am making some assumptions about sex here so could be wrong - referred to the victims of JTR as "whores" rather than "prostitutes". For me that is judgemental language but - as I mentioned earlier - such judgement does not fit in with the apparent character of the author - so I assume it was a slip of the pen rather than an indictment against the victims or against women, in general.

Apologies for ranting!
Sasha

[anna]

Hi all,
Personally I think the idea of an ethics council on these boards is just plain rediculous.
Firstly,99%of the males on Casebook are really nice chaps who I am proud to call friends.
On this site,most of us are intelliegent enough to know what is right from wrong as we come from the generations that were taught this as children ,and we have the utmost restpect for each other and others who visit or enter these boards.
Compared to other sites,this is one of the less aggressive boards,especially when compared to the other JTR site...as members of that board who have visited over here would tell you.

As for Mr Woo.....who has called me a person without parents!!
on another thread,even though there was nothing in that thread that was either against him or any other poster....I was stating facts about JTR.
Perhaps he meant Jack and not me.....I dunno...anyway I gave him the benefit of the doubt....

If he's becomming a pain in the a** then he should be reminded of his manners when a guest on somebody else's site,by admin.
Having an opinion and being an offensive poster are two seperate things.

[Robert]

People with one leg score over people with no legs by 100%, because they have twice as many.

[Ally]

No the person who said that woo was retarded was showing no better attitude towards retards than Woo was showing towards women. People with one leg are disabled, there was no slight to them. People with no legs are disabled, no slight to them. People who as I pointed out above, are blind, no disrespect to them. Deaf, no disrespect to them, etc. So no, get the offenses straight. If we are going by PC definitions of offense, it was an offense against retards, not all disabled people everywhere as a whole.

Because, and once again, not all disabled people are retards. Or are you claiming they are? 'Cause now that would be rude. Tsk.

[John Casey]

Surely a disabled person is not retarded, no more than a retarded person is disabled?

That was sorta my point. The person who referred to Woo as a retard is really showing no better attitude towards disabled people than Woo is towards women.

[Ally]

Not to mention that people who bristle at someone being called retarded will casually use "you must be blind" or " Jeez, are you deaf?" without a second thought.

Everyone, get over it. Really.

[Monty]

If we are talking about an Ethics Council on this site then what would its remit be?

I suppose this site, dedicated to a serial killer, as a whole could be challenged on the question of ethics. However, having spent a decade here I know that for every moron like Mr Woo at there are least three intelligent contributors. Not a bad ratio.

My advice? Ignore the d*ckhead.

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

Surely a disabled person is not retarded, no more than a retarded person is disabled?
There are all degrees of women, just like men.
I thought we were here to quantify a killer, not ourselves?
All such nonsense should go to Pub Talk.