Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

WindSock wrote: »

Haha. Bitter...

Well done, you just proved my point.

Dr.Bollocko, you seem like a decent guy and I respect that you are attempting to walk a fine line so that balance is achieved. It's just that I feel you have have been manipulated into drawing the line in the wrong part of the sand and those users are elected at having put you in that position. You have been duped my good man.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I have made no indication here of an anti-male manifesto or a pro-female stance beyond a one sentence comment. This one sentence comment has been the basis for your series of posts whereby you drew your own conclusions from it.

Nonsense. You replied to my post where I brought up the issue of women personally abusing men in the forum, suggesting that discretion was given to those users as they were "more sinned against". Don't act as if I read something into your post that wasn't there. It wasn't just a general statement you made that I jumped on, exaggerating it's meaning. It was a reply to a very specific point I made about women personally abusing men in those threads and so it was quite contextual. Don't run from your own words, you know damn well who you were referring to as "more sinned against" and also just what you meant by "discretion".

We have addressed your concerns a number of times. I don't know what more we can do to address them.

I love how you twisted things to deflect away from what I called you and MD on. I posted bringing up the issue of how men can also be adversely affected in those threads and immediately the whataboutery card was thrown at me. When I show how the whataboutery card should not have been thrown at me, you act as if by posts weren't dismissed at all, but were given heed - they obviously were not.

What more can you do? Quit throwing whataboutery around and making excuses for those who resort to personal abuse on threads because they have been more "sinned against".

We are not going to ignore any issues relating to sexism on either side.

We have been clear on that. Very clear.

Sorry, but while some statements you have made might suggest that, much of what you have also said, would suggest otherwise:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I don't accept that the largely male audience in AH gets a hard time with sexism either.

You can hardly address what you "don't accept" - now can you.

Men don't complain as much as women do as a group for many reasons. Main one being that they would be quite quickly be referred to as "just whinging" and sure no doubt you're thinking that very thing about me right now, no bother - I understand the mechanism at work. Group-think can be quite powerful. We're taught to be disparaging about our own sex and be dismissive when we have grievances. Tis uncool to do anything else and white knights are so sexy, I'll give them that.

By the way, any chance you could have a locked sticky in After Hours linking to this thread? Might be nice if the regulars of that forum got a chance to have their say on this matter, because as it stands, I doubt even 2% of it's userbase have any idea the charter has been amended.

However the problem with relation to gender issues in AH is hugely overwhelmingly ridiculously much much much worse for women than it is for men in AH.

Nobody is suggesting that it isn't but as I (and many women at the start of this thread) have said: yes that is the case, but the moderation of it is sufficient and has always been. Why exactly are you wanting to change the tone of the forum because of what's going on behind the scenes with regards to complaints? The forum is not yours. You are a moderator of it. Why are the voices of those telling you that the moderation is fine and it's 'as you were' with regards to how you all moderate sexism, not as important or worth heeding as the ones complaining? Who are they to set the tone of the After Hours? A handful of up-starts is what they are and I couldn't care less how many stars they have under their name, nor indeed just what colour they are. Wake up Doc ffs.

What you are failing to acknowledge is that, while there might me more male sexist idiots posting on After Hours than female sexist idiots, the problem that those threads have traditionally caused was NOT down to the sexist posts or posters. The main problem is (and always was) caused by the EXAGGERATED REACTION to those posts or the usual threat of a march on Feedback. The flurry of reported posts and accusations of mods being negligent when it came to dealing with the reported posts.

When ever those users did hit FB, the threads never amounted to much as when they were asked for examples, they could never provide them. Who are you to now tell us that those members of Admin were wrong and that those users actually did have a point after-all. With your charter amendment, you have vindicated all those who were dismissed all along. Granted, Admin is no longer the same Admin but can't you see that that is all part of this too.

Many of those threads would not have turned into the chaotic mess that they invariably did where it not for all the rolling around in the penalty box that regularly followed some post or other when certain women did not agree with what was posted or they found to be sexist or where the objectification of women had taken place. They rarely were about being personally abused or disrespected for merely being female (as that has always been well moderated - in women's direction at least) and so their main complaint was usually one of female objectification and let's be honest here, that's what all this is really about.

"Time of the month there love?! " - ban 'em!
"Fcuk of back to the kitchen sweetheart" - ban 'em!
"Mary Harney's just a fat bitch!" - ban 'em!

New Thread: Sharon ni Bheolain has quit RTE!
Reply: On no!! What about my Six-One ****!

Leave it the fcuk alone! Moderate the above and you may as well close the place and say adiós to the forum as there is a place for every other form of discussion on Boards. Being a little sexist, un-PC, using sexual objectification and making risque comments is what makes After Hours After Hours.

The forum has been sanatised enough as it is. It's personal abuse and attacking the post rather than the poster which really needs to be clamped down on there. Remove that snide element from the place and the forum will be as it once was but this banning of a "little sexism" and suggestions that objectifying men and women is no longer going to be tolerated, is not the road to take. We already have tGC and TLL where immaturity is not appreciated (with good reason). Maybe have merged sub-forums for those places were both sexes can have a place for general topic discussions but leave AH as it is. Quit changing the tone of the forum, it's already too damn serious without these new measures being put in place.

We have a laundry list of complaints about how women are treated in AH. Reported posts. Feedback. PMs, complaints of all sorts. This is a big problem which needs addressing.

Of course you do, which was precisly why at the start of this thread I used the analogy of a squeaky wheel. You are giving oil (merit) to it because of the frequency of it, the iteration of it not because it is warranted. At this stage it has been a systematic campaign by a dozen or so users to change how that forum is moderated with regards to sexism (as they see it) and sanitize it. A problem's size does not equal the response to it - agendas usually do. In other words, mods have always dealt with the nasty side of sexism very well in AH, but not so much with the response to it, which to me makes the response and penalty box histrionics far bigger of an issue than the sexist idiots and posts, themselves (which After Hours undoubtedly has it's fair share of).

Let's just cut to the chase here - blue sky thinking aside:

What, in practical terms does this all really mean for the users of After Hours?

You wrote:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I believe the culture of the forum needs to be nurtured away from measuring the merits of a female public figure by whether or not they're "do-able".

I do hope you're not foolish enough to believe that, because men make comments on AH about how "do-able" women are, that that is the measure of us, that we can't see any other attributes in females other than that - because if you do, well then you truly have been indoctrinated into the new group-think, with regards to such matters.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I guess it was indicative that a little bit of sexism was OK. Which was never my intention.

So, a "little bit" of sexism is not "OK" any longer and nor is commenting on whether or not a women is "do-able" ..

Okay, well then let me ask you then, if tomorrow the following was posted:

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's ok folks - Miriam is gonna tough it out with her hubby despite the massive salaries.

Let joy be unconfined.

And I reply with:

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Thank Christ for that, as I was worried, what with the size of her breasts and all, that her sudden departure could mess with Ireland's gravitational pull.

Will I be moderated for it?

Does this qualify as objectification?

Would I be guilty of being a "little sexist" and so going against the charter?