That's the thing about bias. It says, "I'm already sure there's no problem here," and then someone says "seriously, can we look at this? I think there's a problem", and bias says, "No, there's no problem, we already know that, what is wrong with you?".
When Perl throws an error message in a program you're "sure" is correct, how do you treat that? Do you ignore it because you're already sure that everything's fine? Or do you actually investigate until you know why the error was thrown?
Let me explain why I'm throwing an error here.
There is no reason to use the phrase "patriarchal pig" on Perlmonks unless you are a) ineptly attempting to call out someone for abusing privilege which you see as stemming from their being male, or b) using it as a dog-whistle to send the message "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, oh those silly women and their silly ideas about male privilege!". The poll writer was not a member of (a), therefore it seems likely that he was going for meaning (b). His non-apology to us "flakes" seems to confirm my conclusion.
The fact that you literally cannot believe that patriarchy exists at all surprises me. If you live in an equal society, does it not seem then that one "equal" group its taking the mickey out on another here? Isn't that wrong in an equal society, that one group should belittle another?
I'm just trying to understand what it is exactly you are trying to say here.
That wasn't me, but FWIW, it seemed clear to me that the original joke was against feminists, and I am both amused and offended by the sexism shown by some complaining about it here in seemingly assuming it was against females.
it seemed clear to me that the original joke was against feminists
Do all feminists make that mistake about gender-specific terminology?
Have some non-feminists -- civil government and corporate Public Relations bods with no particular feminist sympathies or antagonism - ever been guilty of trying to 'gender-wash' their public communications for the (mostly undue) fear of antagonising 50% of the voting public.
I'm sure a well-crafted search could turn up numerous examples.
Three possible targets; one can't be, the other two could.
The rest of your post is so ambiguous that I cannot decide which posts you are targeting as trollism; and which you are 'supporting'; but either way, over-simplified, and ill-thought through 'conclusions' are what started this mess in the first place.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my basic point that the target of the humor (and yes, there is a problem with humor that has a target) being feminists (I didn't say 'all' and was intending to be general enough in my wording to include '"feminists"'), of whatever gender, not females.