After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

RDM_83 again · 11-11-2014 2:45pm

Sauve wrote: »

but now it seems there are plenty of sympathisers as well.

How exactly do you define a misygonist "sympathiser"?Surely somebody is either a misygonist or not. If somebody is breaking the rules card them or ban them the rules already cover this issue, or is a bit of McCarthyism required?

P. Breathnach · 11-11-2014 2:59pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How exactly do you define a misygonist "sympathiser"?...

Use of the "Thanks" button is one indicator.

Dav · 11-11-2014 3:51pm

We have an LGBT forum - so does the site "officially" recognise transgendered people? Of course it does and I'm stunned that this is even up for discussion. That we see such demonstrably stupid responses to that on this thread such as "what I if want to wear a dress are you going to call me a woman?" means that people have a long way to go before trans people have equal status. But that's not exactly what we're here to discuss.

The AH Mods are talking about dealing with a very specific problem, not a general one. If you can break a big problem (and the overall issues of gender equality are big problems all across the globe) down into easier to manage smaller ones, then you make it easier to tackle.

The insidious nature of this issue is that a lot of people just don't see it and can't relate to it as it's not targeting them. We had outcry over jokes about male rape on AH, we never see the same outcry about jokes about female rape. As it happens, we don't want any jokes about anyone being raped here at all - but you all knew that already. As a microcosm of the bigger issue, it's a great example actually. Sexual violence against women seems to just sort of be accepted whilst also condemned by most right thinking people. Victim blaming is a very real thing and is a very real reason more women don't report being attacked. On the other hand, sexual violence against men is seem by many as something to be joked about - both issues are equally horribly wrong and the most horrific violations of humanity, but to suggest there is anything even remotely close to parity in instances of sexual assault on both genders is factually way off. I'd love to see a catch all solution, but there isn't one. I wouldn't even mind, but it was a fictional rape of a fictional male TV character that sparked the recent outcry.

Here are some personal opinions:

I fundamentally disagree with the use of the word feminism to mean "equal for all" because by it's very definition it's about making things more equal for women.

However, and here's the crux of the argument, it doesn't matter one iota what I think about it.

There are issues at play here that I don't experience because of my gender. I will never have to worry about an employer not promoting me due to concerns about my being off for up to 12 months due to pregnancy. I will never have to worry about being randomly groped in a nightclub because I had a short skirt or had a wonder-bra on. I will never have to worry about how carefully I have to say "no thank you" to the advances of a chap with romantic or lustful intent.

However, as a man, I will always have to worry about the expectations that I'm supposed to just deal with things in a quiet and stoic way. If I were a father I would have to worry about the clear bias our courts show against me should the child's mother and I split up. I will always have to worry about being seen as some sort of inferior being if I decided to be a stay at home dad or that my partner earning more money than me somehow invalidates my existence in the eyes of others.

So what are these personal opinions about? I'm trying to highlight that *ALL* humans have innate problems they face based on their gender. The specific issue we're trying to address in AH at the moment is the dislike and outright abuse both directly and casually of women and women's issues. This does not invalidate or ignore the issues that affect men, but at the moment, feedback from the AH community, the AH Mods, the Rec Cat Mods and the site's Admins and even me as a staff member says that we have a specific issue of misogyny that we need to address right now so lets do that.

oscarBravo · 11-11-2014 4:42pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd just like to see the site operate in an egalitarian fashion rather than one where gender is a factor in what is or isn't acceptable behaviour.

Gender isn't a factor in what is or isn't acceptable behaviour; gender is a factor in how big a problem unacceptable behaviour is for the site.

The problem with asking that we deal with problems in an egalitarian way is that it requires that we pretend that the problems are egalitarian in themselves, and that an egalitarian approach will therefore be the most effective one - but the assumption of equality leads to broken outcomes.

I'll try to illustrate by way of a couple of analogies. Like all analogies, you (and I don't mean you, Sleepy, I mean you, whoever's reading this) have the option of trying to understand the point I'm making, or of blithely dismissing it as "not the same thing" - it's up to you.

First, consider the spate of recent laws introduced in the last few months in the US to require voter ID in order to cast a ballot. You can argue that such a law is egalitarian, in that it requires black, white, Hispanic, rich, poor voters alike to have ID, but the impact of such laws - in fact, the deliberately calculated impact of such laws - is to disproportionately disenfranchise those who tend to vote for the Democrats. The laws may be egalitarian in theory, but when they are implemented against the background of an unequal starting point, they are far from egalitarian in effect.

For a second analogy, imagine a company with a policy of firing any employee who becomes pregnant. The policy is careful to specify that it doesn't discriminate: if either a man or woman becomes pregnant, that employee will be fired. Would anyone argue that that's an egalitarian policy?

We can afford the luxury of egalitarianism when the problems people face are equal. We have eight moderators of After Hours, but only two in Geography - does that mean that we're discriminating against Geography? No, it means we allocate resources where they're needed.

When misandry is as big a problem as misogyny, we'll put the same amount of effort into tackling both of them.

eta: Dav's excellent post above was made between me hitting "reply" and finally getting around to posting.

Sauve · 11-11-2014 5:17pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How exactly do you define a misygonist "sympathiser"?Surely somebody is either a misygonist or not. If somebody is breaking the rules card them or ban them the rules already cover this issue, or is a bit of McCarthyism required?

I was referring to the posters who insinuated that this isn't really a problem, and we should stop getting carried away with it.

K-9 · 11-11-2014 5:20pm

donfers wrote: »

Yes well done, I'm sure these legions of woman-haters will read that stickie and curtail their disgusting behaviour. Excellent job all-round guys and gals!

The innovative and insightful way you are dealing with this malign influence on boards is to be applauded

Sure might as well do nothing then.

11-11-2014 5:52pm

I think this is essentially, as wibbs says, a spill over from the more generalised gender-war atmosphere of a lot of the internet right now. It's being exacerbated by the fact that boards, and especially AH is overwhelmingly male, so while there is undoubtedly some misandry/sexism directed at males, the misogyny is going to be more of a problem purely in terms of numbers.

However, there are re-reggers and regular posters who are exploiting the atmosphere to post hateful rubbish covered with a thin but respectable veneer of criticising the more objectionable elements of feminism. This has ALWAYS been the MO of the misogynists on boards. A few years ago it was "I don't hate women, all I'm saying is that most Irish women are stuck up ugly bitches. And I can't see how the Irish women here are taking offence at that unless they're stuck up ugly bitches". Now it's "I don't hate women, all I'm saying is that there's basically an organised misandrist global campaign that most women are complicit in either because they're idiots or misandrists. P.S rape vicitms are believed too easily, women will have an affair and steal your house and kids, and if they say looks don't matter to them they're lying hoors."

I have had several conversations with other posters of both genders, either over PM or in real life, about male posters who seem incapable of a) keeping the evils of feminism out of any conversation and b) having a civil conversation with a female poster (though to be fair, one or two seem to be incapable of having a civil conversation with anyone). These are regular posters, and the same names come up each time I have that conversation.

And I'm not saying that criticising feminism is automatically misogyny. Tritium, wibbs, RDM_83 again and several other posters are all very interesting to talk to about the subject, and manage to do so without calling people sweetheart, using the term feminazi as some kind of checkmate, or generally adopting the kind of belittling, hostile tone that other posters go to straight away.

Also, I've been posting here on and off for years, during which time I've been a frequent user of dozens of other forums, social media sites, blogs etc. with the exception of sites which have a majority female userbase, boards is absolutely the best at not tolerating misogyny and listening to the concerns of its female users when the subject comes up. The effort is most definitely appreciated, and the problem is not with the culture of the site specifically, just internet discourse more generally right now.

donfers · 11-11-2014 5:54pm

Sauve wrote: »

If ever there was a thread that highlighted utter ignorance of a very real problem on the site then this is it.

There is a problem, all relevant mods are pulling together to stamp it out, but not only are we fighting against misogynistic re-reg trolls and the odd ignorant long-time poster, but now it seems there are plenty of sympathisers aswell.

Sympathisers - Wow, you are following the classic pattern of fascist ideologies which essentially amounts to associating anyone who disagrees with how you go about your "policing" to be in support of the crime.

Oh and just to add, doing nothing would ultimately be less damaging than adding a sticky there telling posters not to be big bad misogynists. This kind of short-sighted, one-eyed, reactionary and rather patronising move is exactly the type of dictatorial catalyst for the juvenile sexist trolling that you claim to want to stamp out. The trolls and the over-zealous partizan moderation are two sides of the same coin; that coin being a forum that is constantly at war with itself.

If this is the best you can come up with, then no doubt this discussion/issue/feedback thread will pop up here at six monthly intervals.

Trolls and dissenting voices emerge - they get bolder - they get slapped down/told off/warned/banned - they quieten down for a while - they emerge again - etc. etc

Penny Tration · 11-11-2014 7:24pm

donfers wrote: »

Sympathisers - Wow, you are following the classic pattern of fascist ideologies which essentially amounts to associating anyone who disagrees with how you go about your "policing" to be in support of the crime.

Oh and just to add, doing nothing would ultimately be less damaging than adding a sticky there telling posters not to be big bad misogynists. This kind of short-sighted, one-eyed, reactionary and rather patronising move is exactly the type of dictatorial catalyst for the juvenile sexist trolling that you claim to want to stamp out. The trolls and the over-zealous partizan moderation are two sides of the same coin; that coin being a forum that is constantly at war with itself.

If this is the best you can come up with, then no doubt this discussion/issue/feedback thread will pop up here at six monthly intervals.

Trolls and dissenting voices emerge - they get bolder - they get slapped down/told off/warned/banned - they quieten down for a while - they emerge again - etc. etc

i completely disagree with you saying that doing nothing is better than posting the thread that was stickied.

when numerous posters speak up about a problem they perceive, knowing that moderators are willing to listen, engage and take our suggestions on board is a fantastic thing to see. It's nice to know that we, as mere posters, are being listened to and our ideas discussed.

Tasden · 11-11-2014 9:06pm

Sauve wrote: »

I was referring to the posters who insinuated that this isn't really a problem, and we should stop getting carried away with it.

So because someone personally doesn't agree that its a problem on boards they are misogynist sympathisers?

Sauve · 11-11-2014 9:28pm

Tasden wrote: »

So because someone personally doesn't agree that its a problem on boards they are misogynist sympathisers?

Well tell me this then. How do you come to the conclusion that it's not a problem, given the description in the AH sticky, and the explanations in this thread. Justify that conclusion.

Tasden · 11-11-2014 9:46pm

Sauve wrote: »

Well tell me this then. How do you come to the conclusion that it's not a problem, given the description in the AH sticky, and the explanations in this thread. Justify that conclusion.

Some people think it is a problem and they made that known. It's their right to do so and if they do feel it is a problem then I'm glad that boards are taking action in trying to address the issue. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be addressed.

However I don't personally agree with the belief that there is an issue of misogyny in AH though.

I think some posters act the idiot and make stupid and flippant sexist remarks because they think they're being funny. Others make generalisations and sometimes they are about women. I personally don't consider this to be misogyny though.

And to accuse someone of being a misogynist sympathiser for having that view is a little ridiculous imo.

donfers · 11-11-2014 9:48pm

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

i completely disagree with you saying that doing nothing is better than posting the thread that was stickied.

when numerous posters speak up about a problem they perceive, knowing that moderators are willing to listen, engage and take our suggestions on board is a fantastic thing to see. It's nice to know that we, as mere posters, are being listened to and our ideas discussed.

and what if numerous posters spoke up about wanting to continue to make irreverent comments, to have freedom of speech, to make sandwich jokes or to label angered male posters nerds or virgins or whatever it might be - would that be discussed too? Would they be listened to and engaged with? Would they deserve that privilige? Who decides what constitutes a worthy complaint/item of discussion?

In short by pandering to a specific group and a specific complaint they have set a dangerous precedent however noble their motives.

In essence the problem is the moderators on AH and the vast majority of the posters there have a different idea of what kind of forum it should be. There is your problem in a nutshell, define that for everybody instead of inserting worthless stickies that nobody is going to pay a blind bit of notice to apart from the mods and complainants, as it bestows on them some sense of self-importance. But far from even being a temporary solution it is part of the pervasive cycle that feeds the extremists on both sides and ensures these type of issues will be endlessly recycled, regurgitated and reborn.

Red Alert · 11-11-2014 9:50pm

I haven't noticed a particular problem with misogynist postings on boards.ie, but I suspect the my non-membership of the ultra-PC mentality that infects the journal.ie is now partly to blame for this here. The charter in most fora includes a "don't be a dick" clause, and usually mentions that posts rather than posters should be the subject of discussion.

Therefore, why did we need a sermon from the AH mods? If I wanted to hear a sermon about the correct beliefs to have, I'd drop down to a church or mosque voluntarily. It's very unpleasant to see the AH mods post a sermon-like address and then locking off discussion.

Some people are misogynists, deal with it. Some people will break the forum's rules when they behave misogynistically, deal with them.

Sauve · 11-11-2014 9:59pm

Red Alert wrote: »

I haven't noticed a particular problem with misogynist postings on boards.ie, but I suspect the my non-membership of the ultra-PC mentality that infects the journal.ie is now partly to blame for this here. The charter in most fora includes a "don't be a dick" clause, and usually mentions that posts rather than posters should be the subject of discussion.

Therefore, why did we need a sermon from the AH mods? If I wanted to hear a sermon about the correct beliefs to have, I'd drop down to a church or mosque voluntarily. It's very unpleasant to see the AH mods post a sermon-like address and then locking off discussion.

Some people are misogynists, deal with it. Some people will break the forum's rules when they behave misogynistically, deal with them.

Bloody hell. What an attitude.

Ave Sodalis · 11-11-2014 10:00pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

This is surely up to debate. Plenty of scientists wouldn't agree ( and I mean scientists not sociologists, anthropologists etc. ). Why would humans evolve differently from other sexual animals with regard to sex and gender.

If this is in fact boards opinion -- and you clearly represent power here -- it might as well be closed down now. Because that opinion is not just incorrect and anti-scientific it's a radical opinion not as accepted as it's proponents think. If what think opposing that view is "a problem" and "misogyny" then this place is basically the Guardian, Ms etc.

What should have happened with that whiny thread on a Friday afternoon is that it should have been shunted to Politics. People tend to be humorous in Ah, particularly on a weekend. What's the point of the sub- fora unless you use them? What's the point of AH unless you allow some leeway.

All I saw was from that post was a contextual less whine. Now it's a sticky. Proving what exactly? You say you are banning re-regs and deleting their posts so what's to learn from that dull worthy thread?

Not to get into an argument about this but they haven't evolved all that differently. We just have diverse enough personality to notice. I happen to think Davs description was one of the best I've ever heard.

In terms if the thread, if there is a problem that staff/volunteers cannot keep on top of due to the size of the problem, there is no harm in my eyes, pointing out that they are aware the problem exists and are working on it. It's better than people not seeing anything done and getting frustrated.

One eyed Jack · 11-11-2014 10:10pm

donfers wrote: »

and what if numerous posters spoke up about wanting to continue to make irreverent comments, to have freedom of speech...

Nobody was ever entitled to freedom of speech on Boards.ie in the first place. This has been made explicitly clear from the get-go. Moderators are there to make sure the site is enjoyable for everyone, and sometimes that will mean a general announcement is a far better idea to reach more people than having to try to deal with each person individually who thinks they are entitled to say whatever they want, whenever they want, about whomever they want.

seamus · 11-11-2014 10:10pm

Sauve wrote: »

Well tell me this then. How do you come to the conclusion that it's not a problem, given the description in the AH sticky, and the explanations in this thread. Justify that conclusion.

Well to be fair, you come to conclusions based on evidence. There are no examples of the issue in the sticky, and there are no examples in this feedback thread.
Now, to a more casual observer of AH, one might take the fact that it's a topic of discussion to be evidence that a problem exists.

But to a semi-regular visitor of AH who, as Dav says, "just don't see it and can't relate to it as it's not targeting them", they basically see no evidence of the behaviour being discussed.

Therefore, in the absence of evidence, they come to the conclusion that there is no problem. And it's a perfectly rational and justifiable conclusion, even though it may be incorrect.

What's not rational is making the assumption that they must therefore be sympathisers or otherwise support misogyny.

Tasden · 11-11-2014 10:24pm

seamus wrote: »

But to a semi-regular visitor of AH who, as Dav says, "just don't see it and can't relate to it as it's not targeting them", they basically see no evidence of the behaviour being discussed.

.

Also, wasn't going to say in my initial post, but just to touch on this issue here re being the target.

Afaik (and I'm sorry i don't have time to go back and search through the thread) a thread about a single mother, and just the attitude towards single mothers generally on AH, was used as an example of misogyny on AH. I'm a single mother, I read all the generalisations/assumptions/insults about single mothers. Even being a "target" of those comments I still personally don't consider it to be misogyny.

Mr E · 11-11-2014 10:40pm

Sorry guys, the last couple of posts were deleted because they were replies to a serial rereg. If someone with a handful of posts replies to this thread, don't give them too much credence.

masculinist · 11-11-2014 10:43pm

I have seen the words MRA thrown around like an insult when someone mentions how things can be improved for men or when men are disadvantaged. The correct response I suggest is to hear the argument and then refute it calmly.
I would be far happier with a sticky which used the word ''sexism'' instead of ''misogyny'' as the current title gives more respectability and mod authority support to one philosophy over the other. Elevating problems of misogyny above problems with misandry is actually a highly politicized stance. And the effects of that stance are felt by all the members of the forums. One case is in how language is treated. Words used half in jest such as ''femisphere'' are frowned upon yet I can link to a female moderator using the word ''mansplaining'' . Personally I am offended by very little but some things just are so obvious they need to be said.

Red Alert · 11-11-2014 11:12pm

Sauve wrote: »

Bloody hell. What an attitude.

When I meant deal with them, I did mean that they should be dealt with by the mods, not that people should just ignore them. I think you'll find I'm actually quite liberal in my own views if you do look back over my posts, so your assertion is unwarranted.

Soft Falling Rain · 12-11-2014 8:57am

Could someone post a few links of such offending threads? I just want a gander in order to form a full opinion.

In the meantime, here's my 2 cents: there's a general undertone of nastiness on boards when it comes to certain issues. Case in point take your pick of any religion/abortion/dole/fat bashing thread and tell me that you don't see some pretty disgusting attitudes.

It's a general and much broader problem than a case of misogyny on its own. There's only two ways you can combat that: more mods, and users putting more thought into their posts (that is, of course, if trolling isn't the objective of one's post).

By all means report posts but it's always going to be difficult to action posts if a user knows how to skirt the lines of the dick rule.

At the end of the day, the onus is on the user not to be a gob****e to be frank.

K-9 · 12-11-2014 12:19pm

donfers wrote: »

Oh and just to add, doing nothing would ultimately be less damaging than adding a sticky there telling posters not to be big bad misogynists. This kind of short-sighted, one-eyed, reactionary and rather patronising move is exactly the type of dictatorial catalyst for the juvenile sexist trolling that you claim to want to stamp out. The trolls and the over-zealous partizan moderation are two sides of the same coin; that coin being a forum that is constantly at war with itself.

Tbh the serial re-regs aren't that much bother, we've a huge team of mods here to spot them so it doesn't take that much of an individuals time, whereas the re-reg is wasting days upon days posting crap and re-reging.

Nice mention of dictatorial though!

If this is the best you can come up with, then no doubt this discussion/issue/feedback thread will pop up here at six monthly intervals.

Trolls and dissenting voices emerge - they get bolder - they get slapped down/told off/warned/banned - they quieten down for a while - they emerge again - etc. etc

It probably will. Instead of the automatic knee jerk "this is a bad thing" there's an opportunity here to highlight old fashioned and discriminatory attitudes towards men. If misogynist posts get highlighted and stamped down on more mysandric posts will stick out more, making it easier to do something about it.

Indeed knowing the AH mods and having being involved in the modding team, I'm sure they'll be very aware of examples and try to deal with them fairly and consistently.

So, basically, as I posted in the mod forum, patience, with time things will improve on both sides

donfers wrote: »

and what if numerous posters spoke up about wanting to continue to make irreverent comments, to have freedom of speech, to make sandwich jokes or to label angered male posters nerds or virgins or whatever it might be - would that be discussed too? Would they be listened to and engaged with? Would they deserve that privilige? Who decides what constitutes a worthy complaint/item of discussion?

In short by pandering to a specific group and a specific complaint they have set a dangerous precedent however noble their motives.

It isn't a precedent at all, rules have been set since the founding of the site. If a gang of racist and xenophobes have a problem with a low tolerance of racist posts, so be it. It isn't us, it's you!

In essence the problem is the moderators on AH and the vast majority of the posters there have a different idea of what kind of forum it should be.

We don't know that. The vast majority of posters don't seem that bothered, only mostly the ones that post in threads that the rule might effect.

There is your problem in a nutshell, define that for everybody instead of inserting worthless stickies that nobody is going to pay a blind bit of notice to apart from the mods and complainants, as it bestows on them some sense of self-importance. But far from even being a temporary solution it is part of the pervasive cycle that feeds the extremists on both sides and ensures these type of issues will be endlessly recycled, regurgitated and reborn.

There's the unconstructive thing again. There are certain people, I very much doubt you but they are about, that are automatically against this because "wimminz are being treated softly here, we must fight da power". The hive mind on the issue blocks any objective analysis of it.

Earthhorse · 12-11-2014 1:34pm

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

In the past we've done exactly the same thing on pressing issues at the time. Temp stickies on charter points. Can't remember feedback threads on those ones. That to me is extremely interesting.

Is it though? Is it really?

I mean when you post a reminder that Grammar-Nazism is banned by the charter or that "yore ma" jokes are banned there is little dissent; why? Because it's a clear cut rule. In any given post a poster either corrects someone's grammar or they don't, or they make a "yore ma" joke or they don't.

But what about misogyny? How do you identify it?

Now, you may say, but Earthhorse you know exactly the kind of poster and posts we're talking about and I might agree but it's a hell of a lot more nebulous. It isn't so clear cut and you are going to have difficulty actioning the more borderline cases of it.

If mods are seeing an increase in unacceptable misogynistic posts then the best thing they can do is action them publicly. And posters might be better off disengaging from those they regard as misogynistic rather than shining a spotlight on them by responding to their absurdities.

Micky Dolenz · 12-11-2014 2:54pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

Is it though? Is it really?

It really is interesting, to me.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I mean when you post a reminder that Grammar-Nazism is banned by the charter or that "yore ma" jokes are banned there is little dissent; why? Because it's a clear cut rule. In any given post a poster either corrects someone's grammar or they don't, or they make a "yore ma" joke or they don't.

Very true. I agree.

Earthhorse wrote: »

But what about misogyny? How do you identify it?

Now, you may say, but Earthhorse you know exactly the kind of poster and posts we're talking about and I might agree but it's a hell of a lot more nebulous. It isn't so clear cut and you are going to have difficulty actioning the more borderline cases of it.

Again I agree. If I may I'd like to quote a passage from the sticky,

With regards to what we should action, it's often very difficult for us to find the line between opinion and plain ol' hatred but we try and will continue to try to find this line. As objective as we try to be with all of our modding, subjectivity does naturally come in to play, which is why we discuss things regularly to get a more general consensus on things which aren't clear cut.

Earthhorse wrote: »

If mods are seeing an increase in unacceptable misogynistic posts then the best thing they can do is action them publicly. And posters might be better off disengaging from those they regard as misogynistic rather than shining a spotlight on them by responding to their absurdities.

True. If it isn't a re-reg troll, we pull posters up on thread with a mod warning. More serious breaches are met with cards and bans.

Another quote from the sticky.

I will add though, that a huge huge proportion of the seemingly misogynist posts are by re reg trolls, we try to ban and delete these posts are soon as possible but of course by the time we get to them all hell may have already broken loose and all the usual gender war suspects have kicked off the madness. We ask you to please please report those who you think are trolling (re reg or not), and ignore them completely until we have a chance to get to them. Please help us to make this forum a nicer place for you to post.

Sexism can be a grey world and gender wars take both sexes to be involved for them to kick off.

Male or female, if we see that breaches of the charter take place we will look to take action.

To do that we need the help of the people who use AH.

Earthhorse · 12-11-2014 3:09pm

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

It really is interesting, to me.

It just seemed to me that what you were implying was that it was telling rather than interesting, so I was just trying to posit an alternative explanation for the response.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Male or female, if we see that breaches of the charter take place we will look to take action.

To do that we need the help of the people who use AH.

Sure, as always; it just seems that you guys had already noticed an increase in this type of behaviour (I can't say I have especially, though it always comes in peaks and troughs) but there doesn't appear to have been any increase in you guys actioning it (though again, maybe I just haven't noticed).

Micky Dolenz · 12-11-2014 3:18pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

It just seemed to me that what you were implying was that it was telling rather than interesting, so I was just trying to posit an alternative explanation for the response.

Sure, as always; it just seems that you guys had already noticed an increase in this type of behaviour (I can't say I have especially, though it always comes in peaks and troughs) but there doesn't appear to have been any increase in you guys actioning it (though again, maybe I just haven't noticed).

You probably remember the first time around when we tackled this, we went into hi-vis modding mode to try and highlight the issues. We may have been guilty of relaxing off a bit as things did settle down as the message filtered across.

Recently it started to creep in again. Over the last few weeks we have been busy deleting troll posts who take delight in stirring things up. We have pulled up posters on thread to point out that some jokes aren't funny. The large majority of posters in AH are sound and I believe to them it is simply a joke with no malice attached to it. That is why I personally favour an on thread reminder as opposed to dishing out cards/bans.

However, we do have some who know exactly what they are saying and are looking for a reaction. We have posters of each sex who are attracted to potential "gender war" threads like moths to a flame.

We are certainly addressing this too.

None of this is easy. If we work together we have some hope of improving things.

Tombi! · 13-11-2014 3:37pm

I'm not really responding to anyone; I'm just throwing my thoughts and opinions out here.

I read through (most of) the locked thread and and this one; I also read the sticky in AH.

People seem to be completely getting the wrong idea. The sticky came across as a reminder more than a full fledged "grr never talk bad about women". I mean it's not like we can't make a joke or two about women or men. I'm fairly confident that I could post a joke about "being in the kitchen" and it'd be seen as a joke, assuming I phrase it correctly.

It also came across as being a reminder about reporting/PMing mods about certain things and that certain things are not to be joked about, like rape, for example. Maybe it's me but I don't see what the issue is about the sticky in AH. It reminds me of about a year ago maybe, they added a sticky about reporting trolls instead of arguing on thread with them.

Sleepy · 13-11-2014 5:56pm

Maybe it's simply the pedant in me but it really irritates me to see sexism against women called "misogyny". The word means "hatred of women". Or have we allowed the fringe nutjobs of the feminist movement managed to redefine the word as "sexism against a woman" or "disagreeing with a woman" at this stage?

Take for example the following statement "Feminism is a blight on modern western society" (which while I believe to be true). Where is the "hatred of women" in that statement? It doesn't exist: it's a statement of a personal belief that an approach to equality which focuses on only one section of society does more to separate than to unify.

Ironically, I think the Python boys had it right. When a man has the "right to have babies" we'll have an equal society: one that's laws are based on individual rights and responsibilities that have absolutely nothing to do with that individual's gender.

After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

Comments